Kathy, for your information, the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings considered P/P services as part of their Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf) including a number of recommendations that would specifically apply to accredited P/P providers, if/when the accreditation program would be in place, including recommendation #3: 

Following receipt of the complaint, the UDRP Provider will, after performing a preliminary deficiency check[1], send a verification request to the Registrar, including the request to prevent any changes of registrar and registrant for the domain name registration (“lock”). The registrar is not allowed to notify the registrant of the pending proceeding until such moment that any changes of registrar and registrant have been prevented, but may do so once any changes of registrar and registrant have been prevented. In the case of accredited privacy / proxy providers[2] or a privacy / proxy provider affiliated with the registrar, the registrar may contact the accredited / affiliated privacy / proxy provider to allow for the reveal of the proxy customer data. However, such contact may only be established after an initial lock has been applied preventing any changes of registrar and registrant.

[1] This is an initial check the UDRP Provider performs to ensure it does not concern a bogus complaint. This check should not be confused with the administrative compliance check as described in the UDRP which is performed as per step 4 of this proposal. 

[2] To apply to accredited privacy / proxy providers following finalization of the privacy / proxy accreditation program by ICANN.

And as part of recommendation #4:

Depending on the terms of service of the Proxy / Privacy service, a Registrar may opt to reveal underlying data as a result of privacy/proxy services to the Provider or in Whois, or both, if it is aware of such. This will not count as a “transfer” in violation of the above, if it occurs in accordance with draft recommendation #2. If a privacy/proxy service is revealed or proxy customer information released after the Lock is applied and the Provider is notified, the Provider is under no obligation to require the Complainant to amend its complaint accordingly, but may do so in its discretion.

These recommendations were implemented as follows in the UDRP rules which are in effect from 31 July 2015: 

(b) Within two (2) business days of receiving the Provider’s verification request, the Registrar shall provide the information requested in the verification request and confirm that a Lock of the domain name has been applied. The Registrar shall not notify the Respondent of the proceeding until the Lock status has been applied. The Lock shall remain in place through the remaining Pendency of the UDRP proceeding. Any updates to the Respondent’s data, such as through the result of a request by a privacy or proxy provider to reveal the underlying customer data, must be made before the two (2) business day period concludes or before the Registrar verifies the information requested and confirms the Lock to the UDRP Provider, whichever occurs first. Any modification(s) of the Respondent’s data following the two (2) business day period may be addressed by the Panel in its decision.

Best regards,

Marika 

From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>
Date: Monday 16 November 2015 13:00
To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers

Susan,
Are we talking about changing the way UDRP and URS handle privacy/proxy situations? I think that is outside of the scope of this WG.
Best,
Kathy

On 11/16/2015 12:34 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
Hello All, 

I have given more thought about  the discussion concerning  accredited proxy vendors versus all other unaccredited proxy vendors, including lawyers.   It seems to me that we are never going to be able to capture each variation of the unaccredited proxy vendor and James brought up a point that I think we should consider.  

If accredited proxy vendors adhere to all the requirements we are describing they will have the benefit of not being considered the registrant of the domain name.  

Any other type of unaccredited proxy service should simply not exist and they should always be considered the registrant with all the rights and liabilities that go along with being the registrant.  We simply would not recognize any other existing relationship.  

We could make this very clear Accredited proxy or registrant and not delve into all the grey areas.    

The unaccredited proxy provider would be considered the Registrant in all actions including the URS and UDRP.  

I am hoping we can discuss further on the call tomorrow. 

Best, 

Susan Kawaguchi
Facebook, Inc. 



_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg