[Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED

[Smith, Bill]

After a quick look, all but the privacy/proxy best practice recommendation seem acceptable to me. Those best practices might, and I stress might, be a step in the right direction but I have serious concerns with codifying the current set of practices. I am especially concerned with the "retail" language and the implication that it is acceptable for a service provider to act as the registered name holder, license the name to unknown entities, and have no liability for these actions.

Reading the Ninth Circuits ruling that Susan circulated, that current RAA language was referenced to support the opinion that such a name holder has no liability, based on the current RAA language. What has been proposed, in my opinion, goes further and clearly indicates that this is not only accepted but expected behavior by contracted parties, or their "relations".

It's my opinion that this is an area that ICANN, in ICANN time, allowed to develop and fester.

While I think it important that ICANN codify current practice, it is our responsibility to point out where current practice (policy) is harmful. In my opinion, this is such an area.

On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:14 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:

Hi all

Following the queries on the list overnight, I have tried as best I can to piece together the language of the recommendations.The documents I checked against were https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclusions+-+definitions.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1319625303000 (Draft Recommendations discussed in Dakar),  and this https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recommendations+-+v1+-+Nov+21.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1321978947000 (The first consolidated draft of what was agreed in Dakar, and MdR).

However, like others, I have found it confusing to understand from the multiple drafts posted on the private WIKI, but I do think the draft of 21 November (second link above) is a fair representation of what we as a team negotiated and agreed.

I have gone back to text that we agreed in MdR and Dakar, and tried only to add text in the following circumstances:

- Where the sense was unclear, or we were tasking the wrong people
- Where the text has evolved through consent of the team since Dakar (IDNs and Proxies)
- Where the text has come from another, stable source (compliance recommendation on WDRP).  There, as the author and having received a comment from James on the correct parties to task, I have cleaned up the language.

I hope I have done a fair job on this.

I have noted one place (privacy recs.) where there is contested language.  My proposal - sorry James - is that we revert to our agreed text from Dakar on this.

If I have made mistakes on the source language, I apologise, this is not intentional and I am happy to be corrected.

Please carefully consider these recommendations.  They can be improved, the language could be better, clearer, but they are what we agreed.  Please let me have any show stoppers by 1600 UTC.

Kind regards

Emily


--


   [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif]



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.

<Recommendations - SOURCE EXPLANATION.doc>_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois