I don't find this wording acceptable. Firstly, we had several
rounds of discussion on this in the Working group, it sounds in this
formulation as if it had not come up in the working group.
Secondly, we are not proposing that ICANN regulate attorney client
relationships. Are we not regulating Privacy Proxy service
providers? If lawyers are P/P providers, I see no reason to exempt
them. Thirdly, the issue of whether lawyers will become the major
tool for criminals to escape (or delay significantly, almost as
good) revelation of their identities is huge and is well within our
remit to discuss. If indeed having a special class of unregulated
PP providers does indeed drive traffic to the lawyers it makes our
efforts somewhat in vain. I will leave it to the PP providers
present to make the argument about unfair competition.
Cheers Stephanie
On 2015-10-19 11:33, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear WG members,
As you’ll recall, at our face to
face meeting on Friday, the WG discussed whether there is a
need to clarify
whether the WG”s proposed definition of P/P services includes, or
should expressly exclude, lawyers and attorneys who, as
service providers, do proxy service registrations for
clients in light of concerns over the impact on the right to
counsel. The co-chairs would like to offer the following
language for your further discussion:
"The
issue of whether or not accreditation standards would apply
to attorneys was raised in public comments. However, we
believe it is outside of ICANN’s remit to regulate
attorney/client relationships and we believe that ICANN
should avoid attempting to do so in any implementation of
our proposed policy.”
Please
feel free to continue the discussion via email to this list.
Thanks
and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy
Director
Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)