As noted during the call on Tuesday, we have undertaken to generate several questions stemming from the ongoing deliberations that we hope can stimulate further discussion on this list, with a view toward developing a preliminary conclusion for D-2.

- As you’ll recall, the question for D-2 is: "Should ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy service providers be required to maintain dedicated points of contact for reporting abuse? If so, should the terms be consistent with the requirements applicable to registrars under Section 3.18 of the RAA?”

- Section 3.18 of the 2013 RAA specifies two forms of contact that a Registrar has to provide: the first is an abuse point of contact to whom illegal activity is reported – in such cases the Registrar has to take “reasonable and prompt” steps to respond. The second is a “dedicated” abuse point of contact applicable only to consumer protection agencies, law enforcement and other such authorities – for these it has to be on a 24/7 basis and the Registrar has to review a report within 24 hours.

1. Should accredited P/P providers provide a “dedicated” point of contact or is it enough that they maintain and make available a point of contact with a requirement to respond (response to be determined)?

2. If “dedicated”, is what’s currently in Section 3.18 sufficient? If not, what should that be?

3. On the need to respond to a report, Is it enough for the guideline/requirement to be the “reasonable and prompt” standard in Section 3.18? If not, what should it be? Should there be a minimum time frame (if any) for a response (understanding that the response may not be an obligation to act on the report in all cases)?

4. What happens if it turns out action needs to be taken, but it may be action more appropriate for the Registrar rather than the P/P provider to take?