Hi All, In last week's meeting, someone noted that the tone of this set of findings is different than the tone of our original findings. I have done some research, and looked both at our original report and our presentation slides in CR, and they are different (e.g., from the Executive Summary: "Privacy and proxy services have arisen to fill an ICANN policy vacuum. There services are clearly meeting a market demand and it is equally clear that these service are complicating the Whois landscape. ") So I've worked on a revision would use our earlier findings too, and added it to this text. Best and great tx to Peter and Seth for moving things forward, Kathy p.s. sorry for the late distribution; I'm trying to use my new machines at work (announcement soon!) and tripping over everything :-) :
Hi All, I see a lot of language flying around in the middle of the night (thank you!) and I'm going to put up a notice of concern. I see us finalizing language, when I thought we were using the language to try to reach agreement on key issues.
In last week's meeting, someone (not me), noted that the tone of this set of findings is different than the tone of our original findings. I have done some research, and looked both at our original report and our presentation slides in CR, and it's true, they are very different (e.g., from the Executive Summary: "Privacy and proxy services have arisen to fill an ICANN policy vacuum. There services are clearly meeting a market demand and it is equally clear that these service are complicating the Whois landscape. "
I am working on a revision that would include more of the moderate tone we used earlier, and add it to this text. I'll circulate it shortly, but wanted to let you know. I think we are still much more on the concepts, than on the exact language -- and on consensus, rather than division.
Best and great tx to Peter and Seth for moving us towards better agreement, Kathy
:
Sorry Peter. I thought I heard you typing over there in Australia!
*From:*Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:55 PM *To:* Seth M Reiss; 'Emily Taylor'; 'Alice Jansen' *Cc:* 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'Kathy Kleiman'; jbladel@godaddy.com *Subject:* RE: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Seth, Emily, and all,
Thanks again for all the good work on this -- I was just about to send through these comments, when Seth's latest mail came through.
In short, I'm generally comfortable with where this is going and have put some proposed edits in the document, and explanations below:
·My main concern is not with the substance as such, but with the very indirect wording currently used in the first paragraph: e.g. ' that ICANN ... give urgent consideration /_to the manner(s) in which it might_/ regulate and oversee ... '. To my reading, this would effectively ask ICANN to scope its /_implementation options for X_/, without actually taking the step of clearly recommending that they /_do X_/. There are also some other parts of that paragraph where the drafting is so nuanced that I expect others will not know what we mean, or why we have been so indirect. I've offered some alternative wording for this, which I hope finds the balance between being clear about what we want (i.e. some kind of clear and consistent regulation and oversight, noting that broad consultation will be required, and that several implementation paths are possible) while avoiding being prescriptive about how this could/should be achieved. I'm not wedded to this wording, but just want a formulation that is clear on the recommended outcome.
·I'm comfortable with including the disclosure/affiliation reference
·I'm happy to look for alternative formulations to avoid any sensitivity associated with 'accreditation', and Kathy's suggested wording around standards/contracts/certification looks promising -- for this reason, I have not edited those parts, and will wait to review Kathy's suggestions
·I agree with Seth that the paragraph with references to graduated penalties leading to de-accreditation etc could be dropped, but I'd like to see how this sits with all our other final recommendations before making a final call, to make sure that we've got a consistent message across our recommendations about the need for a graduated range of compliance tools (including incentives). For now, I've proposed a minor edit in the attached to include the word 'graduated' in the previous incentives+sanctions paragraph, so that we don't accidentally lose that idea if the whole penalties paragraph is removed.
·I don't understand the objection to the last paragraph. This is very similar to wording we had agreed in Dakar (i.e. our fallback), and I'm not sure what has changed?
Unfortunately, I won't be able to make tonight's call again, but am planning to circulate written comments on recommendations 3 and 17 in advance of the call, and am happy to discuss any of this online.
Cheers,
Peter
*From:*Seth M Reiss [mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, 11 April 2012 3:49 PM *To:* 'Emily Taylor'; 'Alice Jansen' *Cc:* 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Nettlefold, Peter; 'Kathy Kleiman'; jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> *Subject:* FW: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx
Emily
I think the attached draft can be shared during the conference call tomorrow (my morning). The drafting team appears to have consensus on this language except for whether the second and last paragraph on page 2 of the draft should be included at all. It may be we can resolve this during the call, I am not sure. Given the various time zones at play, not each of our sub-team members has necessarily had the opportunity to comment on each other's comments, but almost.
I also think the sub-team believes this draft is a substantially improvement over the "fallback to Senegal" option.
I want to take this opportunity to compliment to sub-team members on their maturity and malleability.
Seth
*From:*Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank@fb.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:20 AM *To:* James M. Bladel; Seth M Reiss; 'Kathy Kleiman' *Cc:* 'Nettlefold, Peter'; Susan Kawaguchi *Subject:* Re: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx
Hello All,
I think we are going in the right direction. I have added in language I proposed on April 3rd and made one other revision to the document.
I am not comfortable with losing the recommendation that the registrars are expected to disclose proxy/privacy service providers that they are "affiliated" with or at the very least they do business with if they have a controlling interest in the service provider.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
Phone - 650 485-6064
*From: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> *Date: *Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:19:10 -0700 *To: *Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss@lex-ip.com <mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com>>, 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> *Cc: *"'Nettlefold, Peter'" <Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au <mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>>, 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>> *Subject: *RE: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx
Team:
I am more comfortable with this language, but maintain my objection to the last paragraph.
Thanks--
J.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx From: "Seth M Reiss" <seth.reiss@lex-ip.com <mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com>> Date: Tue, April 10, 2012 12:09 pm To: "'Kathy Kleiman'" <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Cc: "'Nettlefold, Peter'" <Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au <mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>>, "'Susan Kawaguchi'" <susank@fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>>, <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>
While I am not sure I share your concerns about the word "accreditation" I also do not mind your pursuing alternative language that may be comfortable to all. I want to avoid using the word "voluntary" but I am also OK avoiding the word "mandatory" for now.
Thanks for your help with this Katy.
*From:*Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:37 AM *To:* Seth M Reiss *Cc:* 'Nettlefold, Peter'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> *Subject:* Re: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx
Dear Seth and All, The word "accreditation" is still making me very uneasy -- given my experience with the very narrow "accreditation" of UDRP service providers. Accreditation is a narrow, ICANN-led process with a few "winners." Voluntary standards, or even mandatory standards with certification is much broader, and continues a range of services, choices, in local languages, with local data protection laws, etc.
Is anyone opposed to expanding the concept, e.g., FROM==> "The review team considered that one possible approach to achieving this would be to establish, through a policy development process or other appropriate means, an accreditation system for all proxy/privacy service providers...."
TO ==> . The review team considered that one possible approach to achieving this would be to establish, through a policy development process or other appropriate means, /*a set of standards to be met by* /all proxy/privacy service providers.
and later....
FROM "to become accredited..." TO "to agree to the rules through some process of contract or certification..."
I'll try to created an edited version later today, but want to float this now. Best, Kathy
OK. let's see if we can get something that we all can live with by this Wednesday. My feeling (and it's just me talking) is that we already have something that is much more useful than our fallback position (draft findings and recommendations) and I would be disappointed to go back that the draft position.
I took the last draft, made some revisions (red-lined format) to try to address the issue of process, deleted out those comments that I thought had been addressed or are no longer relevant, and added one more comment.
By the way my comments are marked ZW for some reason.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* 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>.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------*