Hi All, Before I head off, I want to share what you would already know: 1) I like the word legitimate. I think it reflects what we have all said, and agreed to on a recent call, that there privacy rights and legitimate privacy needs. I am sorry to see it go because I thought it kept the balance when we deleted specific privacy rights bullet point. 2) But much more strongly, I oppose the deletion of the phrase "to encourage proxy/privacy service providers to become accredited" from the following sentence: ==> "ICANN could, for example, use a mix of incentives and graduated sanctions to encourage proxy/privacy service providers to become accredited, and to ensure that registrars do not knowingly accept registrations from unaccredited providers." I think Peter drafted the original statement (I hope I credited it properly) and it captures well the consensus of the group -- what we all agreed upon together. Delete it, and it becomes a mandate requirement from the Review Team for accreditation, and we simply don't have consensus on that (and I would have to write a minority statement). (As I have shared -- after 10 years of work in the GNSO WHOIS arena -- We have done more to progress discussion on this issue than any group in 10 years. Make the standards voluntary at the start, and the ICANN Community has an incentive to make the voluntary standards balanced and fair, in hopes of the best practices becoming permanent. Make them mandatory upfront, and groups know they are competing for something that can be forced down other sides' throats and won't compromise. There's a history here... ) 3) I think it's too late for a new recommendation. It's a good bullet point, but I think it will delay our closure process to make it a full recommendation. It fits very well where it is... 4) Regarding the edits to the Full Report, will we all get a chance to see them and review them? I think it would be good.... Best and thanks, Kathy :
My comments on the current draft of Recommendation 10: Data Access- Privacy and Proxy Services
Findings: Para 2: I agree with Peter to delete the word "legitimate".
Recommendations: top of next page beginning with "ICANN could, for example, use a mix of": I would delete the phrase "to encourage proxy/privacy service providers to become accredited". Leaving the phrase in suggests that ICANN could tolerate a community of non-accredited proxy/privacy providers and I feel this is the wrong message to send.
Same page bullet two: I am still confused who is provide the full details and if the details are of the service provider or the beneficiary user.
Last paragraph last bullet. I like Peter's comment "Clarifying the issue of rights/responsibilities/liabilities should be an essential part of the proxy/privacy discussion, with the goal being clear and comprehensive guidance for the community." (I've tried to improve it a little). Can we place this statement above as a recommendation separate from the bullet points, perhaps as the second, third or fourth paragraph under Recommendations. I sense that strengthening this statement could address Susan's concerns as well.
Seth
*From:*rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Nettlefold, Peter *Sent:* Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:51 PM *To:* rt4-whois@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi all,
In advance of tonight's call, I just wanted to note that there seem to be two versions on v6 out there -- one I sent yesterday with 'v6 pn' in the title, and more recent version sent by Susan with 'v6 Susan's comments'.
I'm not commenting on the content as such, but just noting the version issue.
Cheers,
Peter
*From:*rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Wednesday, 2 May 2012 9:53 AM *To:* rt4-whois@icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary
Hi All, I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the meeting in a few hours (it's at 2am my time). Thanks to everyone for all the discussion and editing! I support the Executive Summary and IDN Comments.
I wanted to share a particular support for the new proxy/privacy point that Peter added.
providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the privacy/proxy environment
I'm happy to work with Alice on removing all the comments I inserted... and regards to all! Kathy
:
Thank you all for your hard work on the executive summary. I have made a few comments but for the most part I am in agreement with the current draft.
Talk to you tonight.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org <mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com <http://www.axway.com>.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
--