Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services
Dear WG members, As you¹ll recall, at our face to face meeting on Friday, the WG discussed whether there is a need to clarify whether the WG²s 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 ICANN¹s remit to regulate attorney/client relationships and we believe that ICANN should avoid attempting to do so in any implementation of our proposed policy.² 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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> escribió: 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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to buy into the fictional premise that attorneys and privacy/proxy services are fungible, which premise underpins these arguments that ICANN should meddle in the attorney-client relationship. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:51 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services +1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> escribió: 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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
All, I think we may be going down a slightly misplaced path. The problem is the premise: the concept that registrars will not take registrations from unaffiliated p/p providers. We can begin the process of creating carve-outs, but that's a long path: web designers, children registering domain names for parents, parents registering domain names for school organizations don't even know they will be considered unaccredited providers. /Why don't define much more precisely what we mean and have discussed throughout our 2 years of work: //that Registrars will not take registrations on their websites (using their DN registration systems) using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. / Third parties such as attorneys, web designers, people registering domain names for their clubs, organizations and service groups will not need to be accredited by ICANN at this point in time. If they did, they would be in front of us, like the lawyers, arguing for an exception. Best, Kathy On 10/20/2015 10:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to buy into the fictional premise that attorneys and privacy/proxy services are fungible, which premise underpins these arguments that ICANN should meddle in the attorney-client relationship.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:51 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services
+1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo
El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> escribió:
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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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
________________________________
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 Kathy. That all makes sense. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:21 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services All, I think we may be going down a slightly misplaced path. The problem is the premise: the concept that registrars will not take registrations from unaffiliated p/p providers. We can begin the process of creating carve-outs, but that's a long path: web designers, children registering domain names for parents, parents registering domain names for school organizations don't even know they will be considered unaccredited providers. Why don't define much more precisely what we mean and have discussed throughout our 2 years of work: that Registrars will not take registrations on their websites (using their DN registration systems) using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. Third parties such as attorneys, web designers, people registering domain names for their clubs, organizations and service groups will not need to be accredited by ICANN at this point in time. If they did, they would be in front of us, like the lawyers, arguing for an exception. Best, Kathy On 10/20/2015 10:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Unfortunately, it isn't possible to buy into the fictional premise that attorneys and privacy/proxy services are fungible, which premise underpins these arguments that ICANN should meddle in the attorney-client relationship. -----Original Message----- 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 Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:51 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services +1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> escribió: 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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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
Hi All, I agree with Kathy. Rather than create exceptions, we should better define who these standards apply to. I would not consider it a multi-tiered system to focus on entities which provide P/P services as a core function and which market themselves as providers of privacy services. I am not sure it is practical or appropriate to distinguish at the time of registration which entities or individuals are registering on their own behalf or that of someone else. An idea was floated that it would be based on the number of registrations -- but many entities stockpile a large number of domains for themselves. Would we then discriminate based on who the entity is? We cited the risk associated with creating a loophole to these standards--and a haven for abuse--as a key concern. But someone seeking to go around these standards would probably be more likely to use an unknown entity/individual rather than a law firm that is already subject to hyper-strict regulations and highly averse to entangling itself with potentially abusive activities. We cannot address every single possibility of abuse at this time. But we can try to address the systematic provision of these services by focusing on those entities who are providing these services as a core business offering and which market themselves as providers of such services. This approach would naturally exclude certain third-parties, like the lawyer trying to assist a client to reclaim an infringing domain name, the web development firm building a site for their client's future use, or a child registering the domain name on behalf of grandma. None of these entities should have to enter into a contract with ICANN to perform these tasks. Best, Val Valeriya Sherman<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/sherman-valeriya/> | Attorney at Law 202-973-2611 phone 202-263-4326 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> vsherman@sgrlaw.com<mailto:vsherman@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 Ms. Sherman's practice is limited to matters before federal courts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. She is not admitted in the District of Columbia. [cid:image3dd90f.JPG@2ed0f917.47858d9f]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Williams, Todd Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:53 AM To: Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services +1 Kathy. That all makes sense. 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: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:21 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services All, I think we may be going down a slightly misplaced path. The problem is the premise: the concept that registrars will not take registrations from unaffiliated p/p providers. We can begin the process of creating carve-outs, but that's a long path: web designers, children registering domain names for parents, parents registering domain names for school organizations don't even know they will be considered unaccredited providers. Why don't define much more precisely what we mean and have discussed throughout our 2 years of work: that Registrars will not take registrations on their websites (using their DN registration systems) using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. Third parties such as attorneys, web designers, people registering domain names for their clubs, organizations and service groups will not need to be accredited by ICANN at this point in time. If they did, they would be in front of us, like the lawyers, arguing for an exception. Best, Kathy On 10/20/2015 10:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Unfortunately, it isn't possible to buy into the fictional premise that attorneys and privacy/proxy services are fungible, which premise underpins these arguments that ICANN should meddle in the attorney-client relationship. -----Original Message----- 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 Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:51 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services +1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> escribió: 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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
All, Perhaps is my english, but I don’t understand the proposal. How would it work? Those not accredited would be able to register domains for third parties and the registrar would accept it? Thank you and best regards, Osvaldo El 20 oct. 2015, a las 4:21 p.m., Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> escribió: All, I think we may be going down a slightly misplaced path. The problem is the premise: the concept that registrars will not take registrations from unaffiliated p/p providers. We can begin the process of creating carve-outs, but that's a long path: web designers, children registering domain names for parents, parents registering domain names for school organizations don't even know they will be considered unaccredited providers. Why don't define much more precisely what we mean and have discussed throughout our 2 years of work: that Registrars will not take registrations on their websites (using their DN registration systems) using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. Third parties such as attorneys, web designers, people registering domain names for their clubs, organizations and service groups will not need to be accredited by ICANN at this point in time. If they did, they would be in front of us, like the lawyers, arguing for an exception. Best, Kathy On 10/20/2015 10:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Unfortunately, it isn't possible to buy into the fictional premise that attorneys and privacy/proxy services are fungible, which premise underpins these arguments that ICANN should meddle in the attorney-client relationship. -----Original Message----- 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 Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:51 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services +1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> escribió: 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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Kathy - agree. It will be a challenge on a form of words, but it does address the issue well Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathy Kleiman" To: Cc: Sent:Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:21:15 -0400 Subject:Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services All, I think we may be going down a slightly misplaced path. The problem is the premise: the concept that registrars will not take registrations from unaffiliated p/p providers. We can begin the process of creating carve-outs, but that's a long path: web designers, children registering domain names for parents, parents registering domain names for school organizations don't even know they will be considered unaccredited providers. _Why don't define much more precisely what we mean and have discussed throughout our 2 years of work: __that Registrars will not take registrations on their websites (using their DN registration systems) using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. _ Third parties such as attorneys, web designers, people registering domain names for their clubs, organizations and service groups will not need to be accredited by ICANN at this point in time. If they did, they would be in front of us, like the lawyers, arguing for an exception. Best, Kathy On 10/20/2015 10:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Unfortunately, it isn't possible to buy into the fictional premise that attorneys and privacy/proxy services are fungible, which premise underpins these arguments that ICANN should meddle in the attorney-client relationship. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [1] [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [2]] On Behalf Of Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:51 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [3] Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services +1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin escribió: 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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org [6] [7] _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [8] [9] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg [10] _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [11] [12] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg [13] ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [14] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg [15] The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [16] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg [17] Links: ------ [1] mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [2] mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [3] mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [4] mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca [5] mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca [6] mailto:mary.wong@icann.org [7] mailto:mary.wong@icann.org [8] mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [9] mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [10] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg [11] mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [12] mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [13] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg [14] mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [15] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg [16] mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org [17] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Hi Kathy, This will need a bit of work to accomodate different Registrar models. Tucows for instance is primarily wholesale, and the vast majority of our registrations aren't via our website, but through that of one of our resellers. It could be as simple as /Registrars will not take registrations using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. /Though, that's more or less where I thought we were. Graeme On 2015-10-20 4:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
All, I think we may be going down a slightly misplaced path. The problem is the premise: the concept that registrars will not take registrations from unaffiliated p/p providers. We can begin the process of creating carve-outs, but that's a long path: web designers, children registering domain names for parents, parents registering domain names for school organizations don't even know they will be considered unaccredited providers.
/Why don't define much more precisely what we mean and have discussed throughout our 2 years of work: //that Registrars will not take registrations on their websites (using their DN registration systems) using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. /
Third parties such as attorneys, web designers, people registering domain names for their clubs, organizations and service groups will not need to be accredited by ICANN at this point in time. If they did, they would be in front of us, like the lawyers, arguing for an exception.
Best, Kathy
On 10/20/2015 10:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to buy into the fictional premise that attorneys and privacy/proxy services are fungible, which premise underpins these arguments that ICANN should meddle in the attorney-client relationship.
-----Original Message----- From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:51 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services
+1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo
El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> escribió:
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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email:mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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
________________________________
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
Also some registrars take orders over the phone, via email, fax, physical letter and in person -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Graeme Bunton Date: Wednesday 21 October 2015 at 9:49 a.m. To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services Hi Kathy, This will need a bit of work to accomodate different Registrar models. Tucows for instance is primarily wholesale, and the vast majority of our registrations aren't via our website, but through that of one of our resellers. It could be as simple as Registrars will not take registrations using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. Though, that's more or less where I thought we were. Graeme On 2015-10-20 4:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: All, I think we may be going down a slightly misplaced path. The problem is the premise: the concept that registrars will not take registrations from unaffiliated p/p providers. We can begin the process of creating carve-outs, but that's a long path: web designers, children registering domain names for parents, parents registering domain names for school organizations don't even know they will be considered unaccredited providers. Why don't define much more precisely what we mean and have discussed throughout our 2 years of work: that Registrars will not take registrations on their websites (using their DN registration systems) using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. Third parties such as attorneys, web designers, people registering domain names for their clubs, organizations and service groups will not need to be accredited by ICANN at this point in time. If they did, they would be in front of us, like the lawyers, arguing for an exception. Best, Kathy On 10/20/2015 10:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Unfortunately, it isn't possible to buy into the fictional premise that attorneys and privacy/proxy services are fungible, which premise underpins these arguments that ICANN should meddle in the attorney-client relationship. -----Original Message----- 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 Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:51 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services +1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> escribió: 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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
I hear there has been some recent innovation in the use of carrier pigeons for domain name registration... In all seriousness - I agree with Kathy (and others) that our focus should be on defining who these standards should apply to vs. working on a carve out. I’m not a lawyer (which means if you are a lawyer you can stop reading now), but it seems clear to me that a lawyer is not a privacy & proxy service provider. Alex On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: Also some registrars take orders over the phone, via email, fax, physical letter and in person -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Graeme Bunton Date: Wednesday 21 October 2015 at 9:49 a.m. To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services Hi Kathy, This will need a bit of work to accomodate different Registrar models. Tucows for instance is primarily wholesale, and the vast majority of our registrations aren't via our website, but through that of one of our resellers. It could be as simple as Registrars will not take registrations using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. Though, that's more or less where I thought we were. Graeme On 2015-10-20 4:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: All, I think we may be going down a slightly misplaced path. The problem is the premise: the concept that registrars will not take registrations from unaffiliated p/p providers. We can begin the process of creating carve-outs, but that's a long path: web designers, children registering domain names for parents, parents registering domain names for school organizations don't even know they will be considered unaccredited providers. Why don't define much more precisely what we mean and have discussed throughout our 2 years of work: that Registrars will not take registrations on their websites (using their DN registration systems) using proxy/privacy service providers who are not accredited through the process we have created. Third parties such as attorneys, web designers, people registering domain names for their clubs, organizations and service groups will not need to be accredited by ICANN at this point in time. If they did, they would be in front of us, like the lawyers, arguing for an exception. Best, Kathy On 10/20/2015 10:11 AM, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Unfortunately, it isn't possible to buy into the fictional premise that attorneys and privacy/proxy services are fungible, which premise underpins these arguments that ICANN should meddle in the attorney-client relationship. -----Original Message----- 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 Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 7:51 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed language concerning lawyers and P/P services +1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> escribió: 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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org><mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto: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><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _______________________________________________ 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 -- _________________________ Graeme Bunton Manager, Management Information Systems Manager, Public Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 _______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Osvaldo if we have a multi tier system then we have failed in our core task here. -James On 20/10/2015, 1:49 p.m., "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Novoa, Osvaldo" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of onovoa@Antel.com.uy> wrote:
+1 If our recommendations leave any type of p/p provider out, our work would have been for nothing. Either we just leave p/p services open to everybody or we go over all our work and see what should be change in order not to infringe on the attorney/client relationship, so that we have one set of regulations for all the p/p service providers. This point has been discussed inside our constituency and my position reflects the ISPCP stand. Best regards, Osvaldo
El 20 oct. 2015, a las 12:36 p.m., Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> escribió:
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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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
________________________________
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1. It is the service being provisioned. We care not a whit if you're Atilla the Hun or Joe Q Said, lately of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. If you provide the service the rules, must equally protect and be aggressively agnostic to form, look or feel of the provider. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing listGnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
+1 Nicely said Enviado desde mi iPhone El 21 oct. 2015, a las 01:12, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> escribió: +1. It is the service being provisioned. We care not a whit if you're Atilla the Hun or Joe Q Said, lately of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. If you provide the service the rules, must equally protect and be aggressively agnostic to form, look or feel of the provider. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: 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) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
participants (13)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Deacon, Alex -
Graeme Bunton -
h.raiche＠internode.on.net -
James Gannon -
Kathy Kleiman -
Mary Wong -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Sherman, Valeriya -
Stephanie Perrin -
Williams, Todd