Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers
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.
Hello all, I support this position, it looks very reasonable. Best regards, [cid:260033617@16112015-20D9]Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ De: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Susan Kawaguchi Enviado el: Lunes, 16 de Noviembre de 2015 14:34 Para: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Asunto: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers 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. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Thanks Susan. I think this is the intent of the language the co-chairs circulated after last week's call: For non-accredited entities registering names on behalf of third parties, the WG notes that the obligations for Registered Name Holders as outlined in section 3.7.7 of the 2013 RAA would apply. One relevant provision (in 3.7.7.3) states: "Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name." Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:34 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers 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.
Thanks Susan & Steve for teeing up this thread. Generally speaking, I agree with Paul M's. (I thinK?) comments from last week that we do not want ICANN straying in to waters where it is managing/governing/regulating legal services. Those frameworks are already in place (and far exceed the scope of our work). And there will always be mechanisms for people to create legal or commercial entities to keep their information “arms length” from being publicly available in WHOIS. Like proxy services for gun purchases in the US, or teenagers waiting outside liquor stores trying to convince an adult to buy them beer, I don’t know that we can ever fully account for those who are actively engaged in efforts to undermine industry requirements. And yet, we should acknowledge that there are parallels to what this group (PPSAI) is trying to achieve: Namely bringing a currently unregulated marketplace under the “ICANN umbrella”, and subjecting it to contractual authority. Why would any existing player volunteer for this? The current answer is because these services are attached to Registrars, but this is not essential to providing privacy/proxy services, and if we aren’t careful then in the very near future unaffiliated, unaccredited privacy/proxy services could become the norm. To guard against this outcome, I think we need to recognize that Registries and Registrars participate in ICANN and submit to its contractual authority because there are clear and tangible benefits for doing so. Carrots, rather than sticks. Steve & Susan correctly point out that there are implicit protections for Registrar/PP Services under 3.7.7.3 in the RAA. In effect, we are saying that you are the Registrant of Record (and responsible for the domain name), unless & until you declare otherwise. I believe we (PPSAI) should strengthen this section (here in the RAA, or in the PPSAI final product), by stating something to the effect of: "An accredited PP Service Provider, in good standing with ICANN and acting in accordance with the PPSAI framework shall not be held responsible for the actions of their customers.” And, on the other side of the coin: “Any individual or entity acting as a privacy or proxy service, but lacking ICANN-accreditation or not in good standing is considered the Registrant of Record, and is fully responsible for the domain name registration.” IMO, this approach addresses a number of open questions: * It provides a clear incentive for PP Services to acquire and maintain accreditation. * It allows law firms or other agents of registrants to represent their clients in WHOIS without the burden of accreditation. * It injects sufficient risk / exposure to deter illicit or rouge PP Services from dodging accreditation requirements by claiming they are law firms. * It mirrors other safe harbors (DMCA) that encourage service providers to respond to abuse complaints and terminate services to customers, in exchange for protections from civil action. Naturally there are tons of details to be ironed out in implementation (this is ICANN, after all….) but I hope this helps expand on the idea of using concepts under RAA Sec. 3.7.7.3 to draw some lines between “Good" PP Services, “Bad” PP Services, and Law Firms. Thanks— J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:43 To: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers Thanks Susan. I think this is the intent of the language the co-chairs circulated after last week’s call: For non-accredited entities registering names on behalf of third parties, the WG notes that the obligations for Registered Name Holders as outlined in section 3.7.7 of the 2013 RAA would apply. One relevant provision (in 3.7.7.3) states: “Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name.” Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:34 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers 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.
Hi James, I am all in favor of the carrot -- "An accredited PP Service Provider, in good standing with ICANN and acting in accordance with the PPSAI framework shall not be held responsible for the actions of their customers." But the flipside is not an equal and opposite part of the equation. The fact is that in developing Internet community, and in families coming online for the first time, it is often one individual/one small business that registers the domain names for a few others. They are the "training wheels" of the system and bring others online with them. Often the domain name use itself clearly identifies its accurate use -- a Girl Scout troop, a club, an organization. It is not unregulated space to say that the individual registrants are not responsible for every use of the domain name and website - there are groups and families and customers sharing these responsibilities. That does not make the registrant proxy/privacy services providers either - that's not their business - and a "strict liability" standard is not fair. I may own my car, but if my son takes it out and gets into an accident, I get to argue that he was driving and not me. Similarly with a domain name, the UDRP and other panels and courts want to know who is really using the domain name - not just in whose name it is registered. P/P accreditation is a registration issue; liability is largely a content one. I would much rather regulate lawyer and others who are actually offering unofficial p/p providers than wade into these waters of content and use for individual and small businesses and organizations... Best, Kathy On 11/16/2015 1:14 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
Thanks Susan & Steve for teeing up this thread.
Generally speaking, I agree with Paul M's. (I thinK?) comments from last week that we do not want ICANN straying in to waters where it is managing/governing/regulating legal services. Those frameworks are already in place (and far exceed the scope of our work). And there will always be mechanisms for people to create legal or commercial entities to keep their information “arms length” from being publicly available in WHOIS. Like proxy services for gun purchases in the US, or teenagers waiting outside liquor stores trying to convince an adult to buy them beer, I don’t know that we can ever fully account for those who are actively engaged in efforts to undermine industry requirements.
And yet, we should acknowledge that there are parallels to what this group (PPSAI) is trying to achieve: Namely bringing a currently unregulated marketplace under the “ICANN umbrella”, and subjecting it to contractual authority. Why would any existing player volunteer for this? The current answer is because these services are attached to Registrars, but this is not essential to providing privacy/proxy services, and if we aren’t careful then in the very near future unaffiliated, unaccredited privacy/proxy services could become the norm.
To guard against this outcome, I think we need to recognize that Registries and Registrars participate in ICANN and submit to its contractual authority because there are clear and tangible benefits for doing so. Carrots, rather than sticks. Steve & Susan correctly point out that there are implicit protections for Registrar/PP Services under 3.7.7.3 in the RAA. In effect, we are saying that you are the Registrant of Record (and responsible for the domain name), unless & until you declare otherwise. I believe we (PPSAI) should strengthen this section (here in the RAA, or in the PPSAI final product), by stating something to the effect of: /"An accredited PP Service Provider, in good standing with ICANN and acting in accordance with the PPSAI framework shall not be held responsible for the actions of their customers.”/ And, on the other side of the coin: /“Any individual or entity acting as a privacy or proxy service, but lacking ICANN-accreditation or not in good standing is considered the Registrant of Record, and is fully responsible for the domain name registration.” / / / IMO, this approach addresses a number of open questions:
* It provides a clear incentive for PP Services to acquire and maintain accreditation. * It allows law firms or other agents of registrants to represent their clients in WHOIS without the burden of accreditation. * It injects sufficient risk / exposure to deter illicit or rouge PP Services from dodging accreditation requirements by claiming they are law firms. * It mirrors other safe harbors (DMCA) that encourage service providers to respond to abuse complaints and terminate services to customers, in exchange for protections from civil action.
Naturally there are tons of details to be ironed out in implementation (this is ICANN, after all….) but I hope this helps expand on the idea of using concepts under RAA Sec. 3.7.7.3 to draw some lines between “Good" PP Services, “Bad” PP Services, and Law Firms.
Thanks—
J.
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:43 To: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers
Thanks Susan. I think this is the intent of the language the co-chairs circulated after last week’s call:
/For non-accredited entities registering names on behalf of third parties, the WG notes that the obligations for Registered Name Holders as outlined in section 3.7.7 of the 2013 RAA would apply./
//
One relevant provision (in 3.7.7.3) states:
/“/Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name.”//
Steve Metalitz
//
//
//
*From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2015 12:34 PM *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers
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.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Let's all bear in mind that ICANN and its policies and contracts cannot definitively set liability rules. Those are determined by courts and/or statutes in various countries where disputes arise. What we can do is determine which contractual provisions or polices apply to which actors. This is what the language circulated by the co-chairs attempts to do. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:12 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org; James M. Bladel Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers Hi James, I am all in favor of the carrot -- "An accredited PP Service Provider, in good standing with ICANN and acting in accordance with the PPSAI framework shall not be held responsible for the actions of their customers." But the flipside is not an equal and opposite part of the equation. The fact is that in developing Internet community, and in families coming online for the first time, it is often one individual/one small business that registers the domain names for a few others. They are the "training wheels" of the system and bring others online with them. Often the domain name use itself clearly identifies its accurate use -- a Girl Scout troop, a club, an organization. It is not unregulated space to say that the individual registrants are not responsible for every use of the domain name and website - there are groups and families and customers sharing these responsibilities. That does not make the registrant proxy/privacy services providers either - that's not their business - and a "strict liability" standard is not fair. I may own my car, but if my son takes it out and gets into an accident, I get to argue that he was driving and not me. Similarly with a domain name, the UDRP and other panels and courts want to know who is really using the domain name - not just in whose name it is registered. P/P accreditation is a registration issue; liability is largely a content one. I would much rather regulate lawyer and others who are actually offering unofficial p/p providers than wade into these waters of content and use for individual and small businesses and organizations... Best, Kathy On 11/16/2015 1:14 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: Thanks Susan & Steve for teeing up this thread. Generally speaking, I agree with Paul M's. (I thinK?) comments from last week that we do not want ICANN straying in to waters where it is managing/governing/regulating legal services. Those frameworks are already in place (and far exceed the scope of our work). And there will always be mechanisms for people to create legal or commercial entities to keep their information "arms length" from being publicly available in WHOIS. Like proxy services for gun purchases in the US, or teenagers waiting outside liquor stores trying to convince an adult to buy them beer, I don't know that we can ever fully account for those who are actively engaged in efforts to undermine industry requirements. And yet, we should acknowledge that there are parallels to what this group (PPSAI) is trying to achieve: Namely bringing a currently unregulated marketplace under the "ICANN umbrella", and subjecting it to contractual authority. Why would any existing player volunteer for this? The current answer is because these services are attached to Registrars, but this is not essential to providing privacy/proxy services, and if we aren't careful then in the very near future unaffiliated, unaccredited privacy/proxy services could become the norm. To guard against this outcome, I think we need to recognize that Registries and Registrars participate in ICANN and submit to its contractual authority because there are clear and tangible benefits for doing so. Carrots, rather than sticks. Steve & Susan correctly point out that there are implicit protections for Registrar/PP Services under 3.7.7.3 in the RAA. In effect, we are saying that you are the Registrant of Record (and responsible for the domain name), unless & until you declare otherwise. I believe we (PPSAI) should strengthen this section (here in the RAA, or in the PPSAI final product), by stating something to the effect of: "An accredited PP Service Provider, in good standing with ICANN and acting in accordance with the PPSAI framework shall not be held responsible for the actions of their customers." And, on the other side of the coin: "Any individual or entity acting as a privacy or proxy service, but lacking ICANN-accreditation or not in good standing is considered the Registrant of Record, and is fully responsible for the domain name registration." IMO, this approach addresses a number of open questions: * It provides a clear incentive for PP Services to acquire and maintain accreditation. * It allows law firms or other agents of registrants to represent their clients in WHOIS without the burden of accreditation. * It injects sufficient risk / exposure to deter illicit or rouge PP Services from dodging accreditation requirements by claiming they are law firms. * It mirrors other safe harbors (DMCA) that encourage service providers to respond to abuse complaints and terminate services to customers, in exchange for protections from civil action. Naturally there are tons of details to be ironed out in implementation (this is ICANN, after all....) but I hope this helps expand on the idea of using concepts under RAA Sec. 3.7.7.3 to draw some lines between "Good" PP Services, "Bad" PP Services, and Law Firms. Thanks- J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:43 To: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers Thanks Susan. I think this is the intent of the language the co-chairs circulated after last week's call: For non-accredited entities registering names on behalf of third parties, the WG notes that the obligations for Registered Name Holders as outlined in section 3.7.7 of the 2013 RAA would apply. One relevant provision (in 3.7.7.3) states: "Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name." Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:34 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers 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.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg>
I find myself agreeing with Susan and Steve here. It should be simple either the domain name is registered by an accredited PP provider or the person whose details are appointed in the whois database are those of the registered name holder (with the meaning of the RAA). IMO the fact that the Registered Name Holder secretly acts on the behalf of a principal doesn’t matter vis-a-vis ICANN policies. Such relationship can always be disclosed at a later stage to determine the liability of the parties but it is for the court of laws and other authorities to decide, not ICANN. Lastly, email, hosting and all other services are not under ICANN purview, so the consequences of this program is limited to the domain registration itself. Luc On 16 Nov 2015, at 23:54, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Let’s all bear in mind that ICANN and its policies and contracts cannot definitively set liability rules. Those are determined by courts and/or statutes in various countries where disputes arise. What we can do is determine which contractual provisions or polices apply to which actors. This is what the language circulated by the co-chairs attempts to do. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:12 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>; James M. Bladel Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers Hi James, I am all in favor of the carrot -- "An accredited PP Service Provider, in good standing with ICANN and acting in accordance with the PPSAI framework shall not be held responsible for the actions of their customers." But the flipside is not an equal and opposite part of the equation. The fact is that in developing Internet community, and in families coming online for the first time, it is often one individual/one small business that registers the domain names for a few others. They are the "training wheels" of the system and bring others online with them. Often the domain name use itself clearly identifies its accurate use -- a Girl Scout troop, a club, an organization. It is not unregulated space to say that the individual registrants are not responsible for every use of the domain name and website - there are groups and families and customers sharing these responsibilities. That does not make the registrant proxy/privacy services providers either - that's not their business - and a "strict liability" standard is not fair. I may own my car, but if my son takes it out and gets into an accident, I get to argue that he was driving and not me. Similarly with a domain name, the UDRP and other panels and courts want to know who is really using the domain name - not just in whose name it is registered. P/P accreditation is a registration issue; liability is largely a content one. I would much rather regulate lawyer and others who are actually offering unofficial p/p providers than wade into these waters of content and use for individual and small businesses and organizations... Best, Kathy On 11/16/2015 1:14 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: Thanks Susan & Steve for teeing up this thread. Generally speaking, I agree with Paul M's. (I thinK?) comments from last week that we do not want ICANN straying in to waters where it is managing/governing/regulating legal services. Those frameworks are already in place (and far exceed the scope of our work). And there will always be mechanisms for people to create legal or commercial entities to keep their information “arms length” from being publicly available in WHOIS. Like proxy services for gun purchases in the US, or teenagers waiting outside liquor stores trying to convince an adult to buy them beer, I don’t know that we can ever fully account for those who are actively engaged in efforts to undermine industry requirements. And yet, we should acknowledge that there are parallels to what this group (PPSAI) is trying to achieve: Namely bringing a currently unregulated marketplace under the “ICANN umbrella”, and subjecting it to contractual authority. Why would any existing player volunteer for this? The current answer is because these services are attached to Registrars, but this is not essential to providing privacy/proxy services, and if we aren’t careful then in the very near future unaffiliated, unaccredited privacy/proxy services could become the norm. To guard against this outcome, I think we need to recognize that Registries and Registrars participate in ICANN and submit to its contractual authority because there are clear and tangible benefits for doing so. Carrots, rather than sticks. Steve & Susan correctly point out that there are implicit protections for Registrar/PP Services under 3.7.7.3 in the RAA. In effect, we are saying that you are the Registrant of Record (and responsible for the domain name), unless & until you declare otherwise. I believe we (PPSAI) should strengthen this section (here in the RAA, or in the PPSAI final product), by stating something to the effect of: "An accredited PP Service Provider, in good standing with ICANN and acting in accordance with the PPSAI framework shall not be held responsible for the actions of their customers.” And, on the other side of the coin: “Any individual or entity acting as a privacy or proxy service, but lacking ICANN-accreditation or not in good standing is considered the Registrant of Record, and is fully responsible for the domain name registration.” IMO, this approach addresses a number of open questions: * It provides a clear incentive for PP Services to acquire and maintain accreditation. * It allows law firms or other agents of registrants to represent their clients in WHOIS without the burden of accreditation. * It injects sufficient risk / exposure to deter illicit or rouge PP Services from dodging accreditation requirements by claiming they are law firms. * It mirrors other safe harbors (DMCA) that encourage service providers to respond to abuse complaints and terminate services to customers, in exchange for protections from civil action. Naturally there are tons of details to be ironed out in implementation (this is ICANN, after all….) but I hope this helps expand on the idea of using concepts under RAA Sec. 3.7.7.3 to draw some lines between “Good" PP Services, “Bad” PP Services, and Law Firms. Thanks— J. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:43 To: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers Thanks Susan. I think this is the intent of the language the co-chairs circulated after last week’s call: For non-accredited entities registering names on behalf of third parties, the WG notes that the obligations for Registered Name Holders as outlined in section 3.7.7 of the 2013 RAA would apply. One relevant provision (in 3.7.7.3) states: “Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name.” Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:34 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers 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.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Steve, I missed your email. This language seems to simplify the debate. Either you are an accredited proxy provider or you are not and assume the liabilities as the registrant. From: Steven Metalitz <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 9:43 AM To: Susan kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers Thanks Susan. I think this is the intent of the language the co-chairs circulated after last week’s call: For non-accredited entities registering names on behalf of third parties, the WG notes that the obligations for Registered Name Holders as outlined in section 3.7.7 of the 2013 RAA would apply. One relevant provision (in 3.7.7.3) states: “Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name.” Steve Metalitz From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 12:34 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers 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.
Interesting idea that we should explore further. One question that pops into mind is what this does to the RAA requirement of registrars not to knowingly accept registrations from a non-accredited proxy service once the program is in place. While we would be treating unaccredited services as the owner for all intents and purposes, they are not, not really anyway. They just do not get any of the protections an accredited service is entitled to. It would therefore follow that this RAA requirement is no longer needed and could go as there then would only be three options of who the registrant could be: 1) The real registrant (without proxy enabled) 2) An unaccredited proxy service, treated as 1) 3) The underlying registrant of an accredited service. Best, Volker Am 16.11.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Susan Kawaguchi:
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.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
I think we would still need that language for clarity. From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 9:47 AM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Accredited proxy providers vs unaccredited proxy providers Interesting idea that we should explore further. One question that pops into mind is what this does to the RAA requirement of registrars not to knowingly accept registrations from a non-accredited proxy service once the program is in place. While we would be treating unaccredited services as the owner for all intents and purposes, they are not, not really anyway. They just do not get any of the protections an accredited service is entitled to. It would therefore follow that this RAA requirement is no longer needed and could go as there then would only be three options of who the registrant could be: 1) The real registrant (without proxy enabled) 2) An unaccredited proxy service, treated as 1) 3) The underlying registrant of an accredited service. Best, Volker Am 16.11.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Susan Kawaguchi: 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.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dppsai-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=LA-7KW2MmGUo-R_6d6uGzT6b_I6RHl1LZf9SgBJwqLc&s=33rDJQNKGR83sWxfPu2tLV9GZFFCOdZ8e9KPhQM1R7I&e=> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=LA-7KW2MmGUo-R_6d6uGzT6b_I6RHl1LZf9SgBJwqLc&s=1mMuAZm-mczbUr3yHzr43iJwY6XLPwWzmSZ4MM7NQcQ&e=>www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=LA-7KW2MmGUo-R_6d6uGzT6b_I6RHl1LZf9SgBJwqLc&s=QUCm6M8EhlS_OlTg_KHd9cNbcJJ-uvcyKWDF8cnXULo&e=> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=C...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsystems&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=LA-7KW2MmGUo-R_6d6uGzT6b_I6RHl1LZf9SgBJwqLc&s=2QDThm5vAFwe9y2VQYCbOyRcD17jdQvv72zlx-AznvY&e=> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=CwMD-g...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=LA-7KW2MmGUo-R_6d6uGzT6b_I6RHl1LZf9SgBJwqLc&s=1mMuAZm-mczbUr3yHzr43iJwY6XLPwWzmSZ4MM7NQcQ&e=>www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=LA-7KW2MmGUo-R_6d6uGzT6b_I6RHl1LZf9SgBJwqLc&s=QUCm6M8EhlS_OlTg_KHd9cNbcJJ-uvcyKWDF8cnXULo&e=> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=C...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsystems&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=LA-7KW2MmGUo-R_6d6uGzT6b_I6RHl1LZf9SgBJwqLc&s=2QDThm5vAFwe9y2VQYCbOyRcD17jdQvv72zlx-AznvY&e=> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=CwMD-g...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
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.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
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<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday 16 November 2015 13:00 To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
No not talking about changing anything about the UDRP or URS just using that as an example if it is an unaccredited proxy vendor then they will be held responsible for the same liabilities any registrant is held to. No chance of them saying “sorry not my domain name here is the “true” registrant contact info” From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:00 AM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto: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.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dppsai-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=CwMD-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=yaCFHlJwGL7WuzkX8kdcWVKsIxecGu1mmukVtYDltpY&s=nJwx4-x6eBns7DZPfhKDrz9muSzGGPUBIxcTMoX_IkU&e=>
But this is creating a "strict liability standard." That's not fair. Further, your lawyer is not taking on that responsibility... and neither should a grandmother registering for a grandchild. Kathy On 11/16/2015 4:50 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
No not talking about changing anything about the UDRP or URS just using that as an example if it is an unaccredited proxy vendor then they will be held responsible for the same liabilities any registrant is held to. No chance of them saying “sorry not my domain name here is the “true” registrant contact info”
From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:00 AM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto: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
Hi Susan I am coming around to Susan's way of thinking. Either you are an accredited privacy/proxy service provider or you ARE the registrant and your Whois details are provided to the registrar - and publicly available. Or you can have your details handled by an accredited p/p provider - with the whois information handled according to ICANN rules. For lawyers - that means that if the Whois information they provide is their own, then they are responsible (and as agents for their clients, they should be anyway), so if their clients misbehave in some way, it is the lawyers who are responsible for that misbehaviour. (client confidentiality can be a two-edged sword!) Otherwise, as you point out, they can adhere to the requirements of being an accredited proxy service provider to escape ultimate liability for the misbehaviour of their clients. Otherwise, I share James’ fear of going back to an unregulated market where the miscreants can hide and noone is responsible. Holly On 17 Nov 2015, at 4:34 am, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> 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.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
participants (9)
-
Holly Raiche -
James M. Bladel -
Kathy Kleiman -
Luc SEUFER -
Marika Konings -
Metalitz, Steven -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Susan Kawaguchi -
Volker Greimann