Hi all I've been reading the comments on this contentious issue with interest. So, trying to piece together what's been happening, there has been a lot of discussion on this issue and a draft put together with Susan, James and Kathy's cooperation. I had thought that we were edging close to consensus in that small group, but I see that James' latest edits seem to throw open the issue again. I also note that Peter has expressed reservations about introducing a detailed set of provisions this late in play, and that his sense of the discussions in Dakar was that we considered the current contractual provisions (RAA) to be quite clear on the liability accepted by proxies. Where to go from here? When in doubt, let's think about our options: 1. drop it entirely, and revert to what we decided in Dakar. I sense that Susan at least (and others in the group including me) would feel that we have not quite succeeded in our mandate if we do this. 2. Have another attempt to reach agreed language between the small group (+ I would be grateful for your intervention too Peter) 3. Introduce text explaining why we have got to where we are on proxies, ie: - the contractual provisions impose strong obligations on the parties - we view our recommendations as a step along the road, but recommend that this area is actively monitored. We expect to see voluntary good practices, and better standards of reveal and relay, and to that end welcome the studies/policy work/whatever, that's going on in this regard. - if the next Review Team is given similar feedback on failure by proxies to reveal/relay that we have had, the situation will have to change more fundamentally. The community will need to figure out a way of bringing in currently non-contracted parties into a regime which demands minimum standards of behaviour. We would rather see the proxy industry voluntarily adopt such measures. Can I have your reactions to these three broad options, please. I do encourage you to keep working towards language that is acceptable to all. If we can't get there yet, we should not view this as a failure, but a symptom of a complex subject. We can make progress by identifying this as an area of unease where change needs to happen. Our choice is whether we step in and say what that change should be and seek to make it mandatory, or we identify that if change doesn't happen in the right way, the next Review Team will be back. Kind regards Emily On 25 November 2011 05:56, Mikhail Yakushev <m.yakushev@corp.mail.ru> wrote:

Dear James,****

I am sorry to confirm that neither previous versions nor this format are readable…****

Rgds,****

M.****

** **

*From:* rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel

*Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2011 8:26 AM *To:* Nettlefold,Peter *Cc:* rt4-whois@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]****

** **

Peter and Team:

Here is a second attempt with the Proxy document converted to an older version of Word. I am currently using Word 2011 for MacOS, so I'm not sure what the issue is. ****

** **

Please let me know if this works.****

** **

Thanks--****

** **

J.****

** **

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: "Nettlefold, Peter" <Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au> Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 9:28 pm To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "Emily Taylor" <emily@emilytaylor.eu> Cc: "rt4-whois@icann.org" <rt4-whois@icann.org>****

Hi all,****

I seem to be having a technical problem opening documents from James. Am I alone in this? It happened with this one, and also with the one that had the edits to the recommendations.****

James, or Alice – is it possible to re/send those two documents in a different format?****

Thanks,****

Peter****

****

*From:* James M. Bladel [*mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com*<jbladel@godaddy.com>]

*Sent:* Friday, 25 November 2011 1:27 AM *To:* Emily Taylor *Cc:* *rt4-whois@icann.org* <rt4-whois@icann.org>; Nettlefold, Peter *Subject:* RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]****

****

Team:

While Susan and I worked (and will continue to work) on some of the language, here are my comments on the other sections.****

****

Thanks--****

****

J.****

****

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: Emily Taylor <*emily@emilytaylor.eu* <emily@emilytaylor.eu>> Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 3:30 am To: "Nettlefold, Peter" <*Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au*<http://Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>

...

Cc: "*rt4-whois@icann.org* <rt4-whois@icann.org>" <*rt4-whois@icann.org*<rt4-whois@icann.org>

...

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* <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* <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>[mailto: *rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org* <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM *To:* *rt4-whois@icann.org* <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* <http://www.axway.com>.

* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *****

_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list *Rt4-whois@icann.org* <Rt4-whois@icann.org> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois*<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois> ****

--

[image: Image removed by sender.]****

* *

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 *emily@emilytaylor.eu* <emily@emilytaylor.eu>

*www.etlaw.co.uk*

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.****

**** ------------------------------

_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list *Rt4-whois@icann.org* <Rt4-whois@icann.org> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois*<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

-- * * 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.