Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter <Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>wrote:
Hi Susan and all,****
** **
Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations.* ***
** **
I’m sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly.****
** **
In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a ‘proxy’ is being used) then some special rules apply? ****
** **
Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for ‘known’ proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies?****
** **
I’m sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I’m just trying to understand the position.****
** **
As there isn’t a recording up yet that I’ve seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated.*** *
** **
Cheers,****
** **
Peter****
** **
** **
*From:* rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM *To:* rt4-whois@icann.org *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc****
** **
Hello All, ****
** **
I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy’s revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. ****
** **
I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. ****
** **
Susan ****
* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * 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.
* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.