The New Proxy Language
Hi All, What a night! I can see the 24*7 party of the WRT continued. Thanks so very much! Regarding the language below, could someone be an expert guide? Is it a replacement of the whole of the Proxy Recommendations, or in addition to the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines (which I really liked) Otherwise, I am thinking and researching. I think this is a big change below, and I am not keen on #3 at all. Many, many people use proxy services for many, many things, and the Recommendations section seems an odd place to put a value judgement on that. Otherwise, there are some fascinating legal concepts, and my brain already hurts! Thinking hard first thing in the AM and still reviewing. I would like to know what James thinks, Kathy
Data Access- Proxy Service
1. The Review Team considers a Proxy Service as a relationship in which the registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that of the agent/proxy service and the agent/proxy service alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. 2. ICANN should clarify that any registrant that may be acting as a proxy service for another is in all respects still the registrant and, in ICANN's view, should be held fully responsible for the use of the domain name including for any and all harm that results from the use of the domain name. 2. Because of ICANN's position on proxy services to date, which tolerates the proxy service industry that has arisen and which through RAA provisions gives recognition and attempts to regulate that industry, has been used by courts and others to allow proxy services to escape liability for bad acts of the proxy service customers, ICANN should either delete or amend those provisions of the RAA that can or have been used to allow proxy services to escape liability. 3. The Review Team acknowledges that there may be legitimate reasons for the occasional use of a proxy service, as for example to protect a valuable trade secret at product launch. At the same time proxy services should not be viewed or used as a substitute for privacy services that are designed to shield an individual's personal contact information. The legitimate use a proxy service would be the exception and not widespread. 4. A proxy service industry willing to accept full risks and liabilities for the manner in which domain names through its service will be used will take the necessary precautionary measures, in its relationship with its customers, such that domain names so registered are unlikely to be misused and, if misused, a remedy for those victimized will more likely be available.
"The Review Team considers a Proxy Service as a (*contractual*) relationship in which the registrant is acting on behalf of another (*by an agreement and subject to local and international laws*). "The legitimate use a proxy service would be the exception and not widespread." I support that, even if "legitimate reasons" could be just to protect a trade secret (IMO a weak reason, since the domain could be register under any other name, like a lawyer office). Omar 2011/12/1 Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>:
Hi All, What a night! I can see the 24*7 party of the WRT continued. Thanks so very much!
Regarding the language below, could someone be an expert guide? Is it a replacement of the whole of the Proxy Recommendations, or in addition to the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines (which I really liked)
Otherwise, I am thinking and researching. I think this is a big change below, and I am not keen on #3 at all. Many, many people use proxy services for many, many things, and the Recommendations section seems an odd place to put a value judgement on that.
Otherwise, there are some fascinating legal concepts, and my brain already hurts! Thinking hard first thing in the AM and still reviewing. I would like to know what James thinks, Kathy
Data Access- Proxy Service
1. The Review Team considers a Proxy Service as a relationship in which the registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that of the agent/proxy service and the agent/proxy service alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. 2. ICANN should clarify that any registrant that may be acting as a proxy service for another is in all respects still the registrant and, in ICANN's view, should be held fully responsible for the use of the domain name including for any and all harm that results from the use of the domain name. 2. Because of ICANN's position on proxy services to date, which tolerates the proxy service industry that has arisen and which through RAA provisions gives recognition and attempts to regulate that industry, has been used by courts and others to allow proxy services to escape liability for bad acts of the proxy service customers, ICANN should either delete or amend those provisions of the RAA that can or have been used to allow proxy services to escape liability. 3. The Review Team acknowledges that there may be legitimate reasons for the occasional use of a proxy service, as for example to protect a valuable trade secret at product launch. At the same time proxy services should not be viewed or used as a substitute for privacy services that are designed to shield an individual's personal contact information. The legitimate use a proxy service would be the exception and not widespread. 4. A proxy service industry willing to accept full risks and liabilities for the manner in which domain names through its service will be used will take the necessary precautionary measures, in its relationship with its customers, such that domain names so registered are unlikely to be misused and, if misused, a remedy for those victimized will more likely be available.
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
My preference is to replace the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines. I think there is useful information in that language to guide development of SLAs regarding Registrant responsibilities and response times so would hate to see that work "tossed". Seth's language is an attempt to "flesh out" the simple text we had in Dakar, that said ICANN should remove reference to proxy services from the RAA. I think he's done a good job, albeit perhaps a first cut, at doing that and getting a conversation going on the practical implications of, let's call it the Dakar proxy compact. As I recall, one of the reasons we decided to recommend removing proxies from the RAA is that no matter how hard we, or ICANN tries to control or regulate the proxy business, anyone can operate such a service outside of the control of ICANN or the community. They simply register names and act on behalf of someone else. What we, asa community, can do is develop some policies that set out what is expected of all parties, including Registrants and have consequences, mandatory in some cases, for failure to comply with the policies. The consequence of last resort is revocation of the name. These policies wouldn't take the place of legal action, but they would fill the void where Registrants, or their proxies, are non-responsive. The alternative is the voluntary code, but we know that can be avoided, and letting the courts handle the situation... but that's basically where we are today so I don't see how a code, voluntary or not helps in the end. On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:32 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All, What a night! I can see the 24*7 party of the WRT continued. Thanks so very much!
Regarding the language below, could someone be an expert guide? Is it a replacement of the whole of the Proxy Recommendations, or in addition to the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines (which I really liked)
Otherwise, I am thinking and researching. I think this is a big change below, and I am not keen on #3 at all. Many, many people use proxy services for many, many things, and the Recommendations section seems an odd place to put a value judgement on that.
Otherwise, there are some fascinating legal concepts, and my brain already hurts! Thinking hard first thing in the AM and still reviewing. I would like to know what James thinks, Kathy
Data Access- Proxy Service
1. The Review Team considers a Proxy Service as a relationship in which the registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that of the agent/proxy service and the agent/proxy service alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. 2. ICANN should clarify that any registrant that may be acting as a proxy service for another is in all respects still the registrant and, in ICANN's view, should be held fully responsible for the use of the domain name including for any and all harm that results from the use of the domain name. 2. Because of ICANN's position on proxy services to date, which tolerates the proxy service industry that has arisen and which through RAA provisions gives recognition and attempts to regulate that industry, has been used by courts and others to allow proxy services to escape liability for bad acts of the proxy service customers, ICANN should either delete or amend those provisions of the RAA that can or have been used to allow proxy services to escape liability. 3. The Review Team acknowledges that there may be legitimate reasons for the occasional use of a proxy service, as for example to protect a valuable trade secret at product launch. At the same time proxy services should not be viewed or used as a substitute for privacy services that are designed to shield an individual's personal contact information. The legitimate use a proxy service would be the exception and not widespread. 4. A proxy service industry willing to accept full risks and liabilities for the manner in which domain names through its service will be used will take the necessary precautionary measures, in its relationship with its customers, such that domain names so registered are unlikely to be misused and, if misused, a remedy for those victimized will more likely be available.
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
But what James and Susan did so brilliantly, and for the first time in history, was to begin to bring the proxy services into the ICANN tent and into sight. The idea of disclosing relationships, sharing ownership and contractual relationships, is an enormous step forward. I think we are losing something now... Kathy:
My preference is to replace the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines. I think there is useful information in that language to guide development of SLAs regarding Registrant responsibilities and response times so would hate to see that work "tossed".
Seth's language is an attempt to "flesh out" the simple text we had in Dakar, that said ICANN should remove reference to proxy services from the RAA. I think he's done a good job, albeit perhaps a first cut, at doing that and getting a conversation going on the practical implications of, let's call it the Dakar proxy compact.
As I recall, one of the reasons we decided to recommend removing proxies from the RAA is that no matter how hard we, or ICANN tries to control or regulate the proxy business, anyone can operate such a service outside of the control of ICANN or the community. They simply register names and act on behalf of someone else.
What we, asa community, can do is develop some policies that set out what is expected of all parties, including Registrants and have consequences, mandatory in some cases, for failure to comply with the policies. The consequence of last resort is revocation of the name.
These policies wouldn't take the place of legal action, but they would fill the void where Registrants, or their proxies, are non-responsive.
The alternative is the voluntary code, but we know that can be avoided, and letting the courts handle the situation... but that's basically where we are today so I don't see how a code, voluntary or not helps in the end.
On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:32 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All, What a night! I can see the 24*7 party of the WRT continued. Thanks so very much!
Regarding the language below, could someone be an expert guide? Is it a replacement of the whole of the Proxy Recommendations, or in addition to the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines (which I really liked)
Otherwise, I am thinking and researching. I think this is a big change below, and I am not keen on #3 at all. Many, many people use proxy services for many, many things, and the Recommendations section seems an odd place to put a value judgement on that.
Otherwise, there are some fascinating legal concepts, and my brain already hurts! Thinking hard first thing in the AM and still reviewing. I would like to know what James thinks, Kathy
Data Access- Proxy Service
1. The Review Team considers a Proxy Service as a relationship in which the registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that of the agent/proxy service and the agent/proxy service alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. 2. ICANN should clarify that any registrant that may be acting as a proxy service for another is in all respects still the registrant and, in ICANN's view, should be held fully responsible for the use of the domain name including for any and all harm that results from the use of the domain name. 2. Because of ICANN's position on proxy services to date, which tolerates the proxy service industry that has arisen and which through RAA provisions gives recognition and attempts to regulate that industry, has been used by courts and others to allow proxy services to escape liability for bad acts of the proxy service customers, ICANN should either delete or amend those provisions of the RAA that can or have been used to allow proxy services to escape liability. 3. The Review Team acknowledges that there may be legitimate reasons for the occasional use of a proxy service, as for example to protect a valuable trade secret at product launch. At the same time proxy services should not be viewed or used as a substitute for privacy services that are designed to shield an individual's personal contact information. The legitimate use a proxy service would be the exception and not widespread. 4. A proxy service industry willing to accept full risks and liabilities for the manner in which domain names through its service will be used will take the necessary precautionary measures, in its relationship with its customers, such that domain names so registered are unlikely to be misused and, if misused, a remedy for those victimized will more likely be available.
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
--
That can still be a recommendation, for any "related entity". What we need to remember is no matter how many words we write, or how big we make the tent, anyone can act as a proxy for another and fail to live by the rules. Without mandatory, actionable, *penalties* for such failure, we are destined to perpetuate the current system. I thought we had agreed in Dakar to recommend change. I think I've demonstrated how the proposed voluntary system can be subverted, even if every proxy service initially signs up to the code. As soon as one breaks away or a new, non-signatory springs up, others will follow and we will be back to the current state. I don't want to lose the valuable work that was done. My suggestions is for that language and the concepts behind it to find its way into a set of comprehensive SLAs that will, for the first time, tie all parties in the Domain Name Registration system together in a meaningful way that will make it significantly harder to cause long-term harm. On Dec 1, 2011, at 6:17 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
But what James and Susan did so brilliantly, and for the first time in history, was to begin to bring the proxy services into the ICANN tent and into sight. The idea of disclosing relationships, sharing ownership and contractual relationships, is an enormous step forward. I think we are losing something now...
Kathy:
My preference is to replace the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines. I think there is useful information in that language to guide development of SLAs regarding Registrant responsibilities and response times so would hate to see that work "tossed".
Seth's language is an attempt to "flesh out" the simple text we had in Dakar, that said ICANN should remove reference to proxy services from the RAA. I think he's done a good job, albeit perhaps a first cut, at doing that and getting a conversation going on the practical implications of, let's call it the Dakar proxy compact.
As I recall, one of the reasons we decided to recommend removing proxies from the RAA is that no matter how hard we, or ICANN tries to control or regulate the proxy business, anyone can operate such a service outside of the control of ICANN or the community. They simply register names and act on behalf of someone else.
What we, asa community, can do is develop some policies that set out what is expected of all parties, including Registrants and have consequences, mandatory in some cases, for failure to comply with the policies. The consequence of last resort is revocation of the name.
These policies wouldn't take the place of legal action, but they would fill the void where Registrants, or their proxies, are non-responsive.
The alternative is the voluntary code, but we know that can be avoided, and letting the courts handle the situation... but that's basically where we are today so I don't see how a code, voluntary or not helps in the end.
On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:32 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All, What a night! I can see the 24*7 party of the WRT continued. Thanks so very much!
Regarding the language below, could someone be an expert guide? Is it a replacement of the whole of the Proxy Recommendations, or in addition to the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines (which I really liked)
Otherwise, I am thinking and researching. I think this is a big change below, and I am not keen on #3 at all. Many, many people use proxy services for many, many things, and the Recommendations section seems an odd place to put a value judgement on that.
Otherwise, there are some fascinating legal concepts, and my brain already hurts! Thinking hard first thing in the AM and still reviewing. I would like to know what James thinks, Kathy
Data Access- Proxy Service
1. The Review Team considers a Proxy Service as a relationship in which the registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that of the agent/proxy service and the agent/proxy service alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. 2. ICANN should clarify that any registrant that may be acting as a proxy service for another is in all respects still the registrant and, in ICANN's view, should be held fully responsible for the use of the domain name including for any and all harm that results from the use of the domain name. 2. Because of ICANN's position on proxy services to date, which tolerates the proxy service industry that has arisen and which through RAA provisions gives recognition and attempts to regulate that industry, has been used by courts and others to allow proxy services to escape liability for bad acts of the proxy service customers, ICANN should either delete or amend those provisions of the RAA that can or have been used to allow proxy services to escape liability. 3. The Review Team acknowledges that there may be legitimate reasons for the occasional use of a proxy service, as for example to protect a valuable trade secret at product launch. At the same time proxy services should not be viewed or used as a substitute for privacy services that are designed to shield an individual's personal contact information. The legitimate use a proxy service would be the exception and not widespread. 4. A proxy service industry willing to accept full risks and liabilities for the manner in which domain names through its service will be used will take the necessary precautionary measures, in its relationship with its customers, such that domain names so registered are unlikely to be misused and, if misused, a remedy for those victimized will more likely be available.
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
--
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Hi Kathy I am not onboard with Bill and Seth's recommendation but I am willing to explore this direction. Susan Sent from my iPhone On Dec 1, 2011, at 6:18 AM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
But what James and Susan did so brilliantly, and for the first time in history, was to begin to bring the proxy services into the ICANN tent and into sight. The idea of disclosing relationships, sharing ownership and contractual relationships, is an enormous step forward. I think we are losing something now...
Kathy:
My preference is to replace the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines. I think there is useful information in that language to guide development of SLAs regarding Registrant responsibilities and response times so would hate to see that work "tossed".
Seth's language is an attempt to "flesh out" the simple text we had in Dakar, that said ICANN should remove reference to proxy services from the RAA. I think he's done a good job, albeit perhaps a first cut, at doing that and getting a conversation going on the practical implications of, let's call it the Dakar proxy compact.
As I recall, one of the reasons we decided to recommend removing proxies from the RAA is that no matter how hard we, or ICANN tries to control or regulate the proxy business, anyone can operate such a service outside of the control of ICANN or the community. They simply register names and act on behalf of someone else.
What we, asa community, can do is develop some policies that set out what is expected of all parties, including Registrants and have consequences, mandatory in some cases, for failure to comply with the policies. The consequence of last resort is revocation of the name.
These policies wouldn't take the place of legal action, but they would fill the void where Registrants, or their proxies, are non-responsive.
The alternative is the voluntary code, but we know that can be avoided, and letting the courts handle the situation... but that's basically where we are today so I don't see how a code, voluntary or not helps in the end.
On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:32 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All, What a night! I can see the 24*7 party of the WRT continued. Thanks so very much!
Regarding the language below, could someone be an expert guide? Is it a replacement of the whole of the Proxy Recommendations, or in addition to the Voluntary Best Practices Guidelines (which I really liked)
Otherwise, I am thinking and researching. I think this is a big change below, and I am not keen on #3 at all. Many, many people use proxy services for many, many things, and the Recommendations section seems an odd place to put a value judgement on that.
Otherwise, there are some fascinating legal concepts, and my brain already hurts! Thinking hard first thing in the AM and still reviewing. I would like to know what James thinks, Kathy
Data Access- Proxy Service
1. The Review Team considers a Proxy Service as a relationship in which the registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that of the agent/proxy service and the agent/proxy service alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. 2. ICANN should clarify that any registrant that may be acting as a proxy service for another is in all respects still the registrant and, in ICANN's view, should be held fully responsible for the use of the domain name including for any and all harm that results from the use of the domain name. 2. Because of ICANN's position on proxy services to date, which tolerates the proxy service industry that has arisen and which through RAA provisions gives recognition and attempts to regulate that industry, has been used by courts and others to allow proxy services to escape liability for bad acts of the proxy service customers, ICANN should either delete or amend those provisions of the RAA that can or have been used to allow proxy services to escape liability. 3. The Review Team acknowledges that there may be legitimate reasons for the occasional use of a proxy service, as for example to protect a valuable trade secret at product launch. At the same time proxy services should not be viewed or used as a substitute for privacy services that are designed to shield an individual's personal contact information. The legitimate use a proxy service would be the exception and not widespread. 4. A proxy service industry willing to accept full risks and liabilities for the manner in which domain names through its service will be used will take the necessary precautionary measures, in its relationship with its customers, such that domain names so registered are unlikely to be misused and, if misused, a remedy for those victimized will more likely be available.
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
--
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
participants (4)
-
Kathy Kleiman -
Omar Kaminski -
Smith, Bill -
Susan Kawaguchi