ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[dow2tf]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow2tf] Proxy services update: Findings + recommendations.

  • To: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Proxy services update: Findings + recommendations.
  • From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:04:02 -0400
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcQ8Zz1Gd+vJ9IvzQJ+sUujF/makdwBQdMvw
  • Thread-topic: [dow2tf] Proxy services update: Findings + recommendations.

I support all of Thomas's changes EXCEPT deletion of the second bullet.
Thomas is quite right that the wording I suggested does not make much
sense in the situation in which the proxy service is independent of the
registrar. The issue I was trying to get at is the validity of the
information on what is referred to (in several places in the document)
as the "actual registrant," i.e., the customer of the proxy service.  In
the attached I have suggested some revised wording that, I hope, conveys
this issue more clearly.  

I also suggest a minor change in the sentence preceding the bullets in
the recommendations, since we are in fact recommending some steps
(further research) but not any change in the RAA at this point.      

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 7:32 PM
To: dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [dow2tf] Proxy services update: Findings + recommendations.

Hello,

I'm attaching updated findings and recommendations sections on proxy
services.  With the findings, I have included an extremely brief summary
of the constituency input received during the data collection phase.

The recommendations are based on Steve's 14 May text, with the following
changes:

- There is a brief introduction that mentions the NCUC's proposal to
  strike RAA 3.7.7.3 and points to concerns raised with the proxy
  situation.

- I suggest to strike the second question, "What steps are taken to
  ensure that the registrar collects (or has immediate access to)
  accurate, complete and current contact information on all
  registrants taking advantage of such services?"
  
  This question does not make much sense to me, since -- from a
  registrar perspective -- the proxy service is the registrant.  Is
  the idea here that proxy services should tunnel some information
  to registrars, or is this question intended to specifically apply
  to proxy services provided in cooperation with registrars?
  
  This either needs quite a bit of clarification, or should be
  stricken.

- I have added two questions, one asking about stability issues --
  what happens to a domain name registered through proxy when the
  proxy goes out of business? --, and one asking about the
  usefulness of proxy services to enable anonymous free speech.

Word document attached.

PS: I have finally listened to the 21 April MP3. Proxy services were not
discussed on that call.

Good night,
--
Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> At-Large Advisory
Committee: http://alac.info/


Attachment: bin00016.bin
Description: bin00016.bin



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>