[Rt4-whois] GETTING TO CLOSURE: A ROADMAP
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Thu Dec 1 17:09:55 UTC 2011
+1
Kathy
I am in favor of Lynn's proposal.
>
> Option 2.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Michael
>
> *From:*rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 01, 2011 6:53 PM
> *To:* Emily Taylor
> *Cc:* rt4-whois at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] GETTING TO CLOSURE: A ROADMAP
>
> I am in favor of #2: adopt the text drafted by Susan and James which
> includes good practices.
>
> This is a good and fair compromise and will make a realistic step
> forward in improving the abusive activities
>
> which ultimately harm everyone in the domain name industry.
>
> As an independent expert on this team, I feel it is important for us
> to be mindful that the AoC review requirement is an alternative to
> formal government regulation and it is a form of self-regulation. I
> have fully supported that approach. But it will fail if we do not
> consider the public interest and the trend of escalating fraud on the
> Internet.
>
> Lynn
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] GETTING TO CLOSURE: A ROADMAP
> From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu
> <mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
> Date: Thu, December 01, 2011 10:18 am
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>
>
> Hi
>
> I went to bed last night thinking that we were nearly in agreement
> on the proxy recommendations that James, Susan and Kathy have been
> working on over the past weeks.
>
> In the middle of the night, I awoke to find new text on the table.
>
> You all know that our cut off date was yesterday, and we are now
> on negative time. However, I do want to go through the time zones
> so that we all have a chance to consider the options.
>
> Broadly, we have three alternatives.
>
> 1. Adopt the very brief text agreed in Dakar and no more
> 2. Adopt the relatively stable text drafted by that small group
> which includes good practices
> 3. Adopt the new text, drafted last night by Seth on behalf of
> another small team.
>
> We act by consensus. But we also have a deadline. I'm therefore
> going to call it before I go to sleep tonight, and in default of
> an alternative agreement we will have to go back to what we agreed
> in Dakar. I know that some people are not happy with it, but it
> has a simplicity, and avoids confusion about whether or not the
> good practices conflicts with the idea of liability.
>
> Alternatively, we can adopt different text, but it has to be by
> consensus. Remember, folks, that's difficult to achieve, and
> leaves everyone feeling a little bit frustrated, and like they
> could have got more if they pushed harder.
>
> Please try to bear in mind that we have a very, very strong full
> report. This is one part of the whole puzzle, which has to be
> seen within its own context. There will be further studies on
> proxies/privacy. There will be another review team on WHOIS which
> will kick off in less than 2 years. To speak for a moment in
> support of voluntary good practices, this is a well known
> regulatory step. It's what you do when you're not happy with the
> current situation (check), but you're not quite sure what will be
> an effective regulatory intervention (check). So, you explore the
> landscape - as I think the draft recommendations (alternative 2
> below) very eloquently do. I should emphasise that good practices
> are not the final word. They are an interim plug, a step in the
> right direction. If, having gone through that, Bill and others
> are right and it's all still a mess, that's when you go for the
> next incremental step - but the important bit is, industry has
> been given a chance to clean out the stables after being told in
> no uncertain terms that there's a problem . That's where we are now.
>
> The third choice is that we adopt the new text, maybe with tweaks
> or changes. If that's what we're doing, I would be failing in my
> duties as your Chair if I did not set some deadline for this. We
> have known the issues for a long time, we have been wrestling with
> them, and reaching consensus is hard. I don't think that this is
> a case of "just a bit more time", but I'm very willing to be
> proved wrong.
>
> So, my challenge to you is - tell me what you have *all* agreed on
> proxies by 10pm UTC. If the answer is "nothing" we go with what
> we agreed in Dakar.
>
> Whatever the outcome, we have done a wonderful job on this
> report. Take it in its entirety, it represents a lot of work, and
> a lot of willpower and cooperation, plus - importantly - a
> willingness to step outside of one's individual, commercial
> interests and think about the public interest. I have been
> marvelling at the sheer energy that has been focused on this
> mailing list and the incredible progress we have made since the
> weekend (remember, I'm a Brit, not American, so I don't say these
> sort of things easily!).
>
> Keep up this discussion. But please focus your thoughts and
> exchanges on the give and take that's necessary for consensus.
>
> To assist those who may not be fully up to speed, the text for the
> three alternatives are below. Whatever happens, we are closing
> this discussion in just under 7 hours. Good luck!
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
> ---------
>
> Alternative 1
> the text we agreed in Dakar on proxy definition and proxy liability
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, the WHOIS Policy[, referred to in
> Recommendation 1 above], should include an affirmative statement
> that clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the
> Registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that
> of the agent, and the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes
> all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use
>
> Alternative 2
> The text on best practices worked on by Susan, James and Kathy
> last night (latest version)
>
> *Data Access- Proxy Service*
>
> 1.ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by
> reaching out to proxy providers to create a discussion which sets
> out current processes followed by proxy service providers.
>
> 2.Registrars should be required to disclosure their relationship
> with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider to ICANN.
>
> 3.ICANN should develop and manage a set of voluntary best practice
> guidelines for appropriate proxy services [footnote 1] consistent
> with national laws. These voluntary guidelines should strike an
> appropriate balance between stakeholders with competing but
> legitimate interests. At a minimum this would include privacy, law
> enforcement and the industry around law enforcement.
>
> Such voluntary guidelines may include:
>
> + Proxy services provide full contact details as required by the Whois
>
> + Publication by the proxy service of its process for revealing
> and relaying information
>
> + Standardization of reveal and relay processes and timeframes,
> consistent with national laws
>
> + Maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the proxy
> service provider
>
> + Due diligence checks on licensee contact information.
>
> 5. ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact
> with the retail service providers that adopt the best practices.
>
> 6. For the avoidance of doubt, the WHOIS Policy, referred to in
> Recommendation 1 above, should include an affirmative statement
> that clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the
> Registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that
> of the agent, and the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes
> all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use.
>
> Footnote 1 (all the remaining text)
> As guidance to the Community and as useful background for the
> Proxy Service Recommendations, the Review Team provides its
> working definitions of proxy service and different types of proxy
> service providers:
>
> - *_Proxy Service_ *-- a relationship in which the registrant is
> acting on behalf of another The WHOIS data is that of the agent
> and the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all
> responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. /[KK: is
> this the definition we are using in other places in the Report?]/
>
> /- /*_Affiliated Registrar _*_- _another ICANN accredited
> registrar that operates under a common controlling interest (2009
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement, Section 1.20)
>
> - *Affiliate retail proxy service provider *-- entity operating
> under a common controlling interest of a registrar.
>
> - *Retail proxy service provider *- 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 _*- 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.
>
>
> Alternative 3
> Seth's proposal.
>
> Data Access- Proxy Service
>
> 1. The Review Team considers a Proxy Service as a
> relationship in which
>
> the registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is
> that of the
>
> agent/proxy service and the agent/proxy service alone obtains all
> rights and
>
> assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use.
>
> 2. ICANN should clarify that any registrant that may be
> acting as a
>
> proxy service for another is in all respects still the registrant
> and, in
>
> ICANN's view, should be held fully responsible for the use of the
> domain
>
> name including for any and all harm that results from the use of
> the domain
>
> name.
>
> 2. Because of ICANN's position on proxy services to date, which
>
> tolerates the proxy service industry that has arisen and which
> through RAA
>
> provisions gives recognition and attempts to regulate that
> industry, has
>
> been used by courts and others to allow proxy services to escape
> liability
>
> for bad acts of the proxy service customers, ICANN should either
> delete or
>
> amend those provisions of the RAA that can or have been used to
> allow proxy
>
> services to escape liability.
>
> 3. The Review Team acknowledges that there may be legitimate
> reasons
>
> for the occasional use of a proxy service, as for example to protect a
>
> valuable trade secret at product launch. At the same time proxy
> services
>
> should not be viewed or used as a substitute for privacy services
> that are
>
> designed to shield an individual's personal contact information. The
>
> legitimate use a proxy service would be the exception and not
> widespread.
>
> 4. A proxy service industry willing to accept full risks and
> liabilities
>
> for the manner in which domain names through its service will be
> used will
>
> take the necessary precautionary measures, in its relationship
> with its
>
> customers, such that domain names so registered are unlikely to be
> misused
>
> and, if misused, a remedy for those victimized will more likely be
>
> available.
>
> Description: Image removed by sender.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Description: Image removed by sender.
>
> __
>
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 <tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811> . m:
> +44 (0)7540 049 322 <tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322>
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111201/05254ff1/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/20111201/05254ff1/attachment.jpe
More information about the Rt4-whois
mailing list