From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sun Jan 2 00:40:39 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 17:40:39 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] note on ICANN DNS Security Survey results, 23 Dec Message-ID: <20110101174039.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.407effa819.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110101/1cbf2f95/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Sun Jan 2 07:54:28 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 00:54:28 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] ATRT Final Report and Process Observations Message-ID: <20110102005428.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.5143d7416d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110102/14fa12ae/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Sun Jan 2 08:03:27 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 08:03:27 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] ATRT Final Report and Process Observations In-Reply-To: <20110102005428.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.5143d7416d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20110102005428.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.5143d7416d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4A117A73-936D-45DF-A87D-7DC34ECCFEFF@etlaw.co.uk> Hi James Thank you for this input. I was reviewing those sections yesterday evening, and had exactly those thoughts. On a very quick look, the ATRT report seems an impressive piece of work, and I think we can usefully reflect and learn from the process that they went through. Kind regards, and Happy New Year to all on the Whois RT! Emily On 2 Jan 2011, at 07:54, James M. Bladel wrote: > Team: > > Hope everyone had a good holiday and looking forward to our continued work in the New Year. > > During the past few days, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) published its Final Report and Recommendations. You can review the entire document here: > > http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-final-recommendations-31dec10-en.pdf > > In my opinion, there are two sections that are of particular interest to the RT4 effort: Appendix A: "Overview of the ATRT Process" (beginning on page 57), and Appendix B: "Observations of the ATRT Process" (pg. 65). > > The ATRT encountered (and overcame) many process challenges during the course of its work. We may face the same or similar issues on this Review Team, and can benefit from the model & precedents set by the ATRT. If at all practical, I encourage that the members of RT4 review at least these two sections prior to our meeting in London. > > Thanks-- > > J. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110102/9b7bf170/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Sun Jan 2 11:42:15 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 11:42:15 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Summary of decisions to date Message-ID: Dear all Reflecting on the comments made on this list about the importance of sustaining communication about our activities to the community, I propose that we publish a short summary of the decisions made by the Whois RT to date. To this end, with Alice and Kathy's assistance, I hope to circulate a draft for your comments soon, and look forward to your input. Best regards Emily 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110102/250fc5e4/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Sun Jan 2 17:43:20 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 17:43:20 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work Message-ID: <9FDB6BB4-C34E-45E5-BD80-B28EE7282D8C@etlaw.co.uk> Hi all I'm belatedly replying to Kathy's thread, and her updates on the Scope document following the Cartagena meeting. Bearing in mind that we should be aiming to communicate our scope of work to both ICANN insiders and those not so familiar with the context of these review teams, I have amended the draft scope to add in context from the AoC, including quoting the fact that the team is constituted under the AoC, the relevant paragraph (9.3.1) and other overarching principles contained within the AoC relating to ICANN's obligations to make policy in the public interest and "not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders" (para 4). One of the questions that I have in approaching our work, which I hope we will discuss in London, is to what extent should we be looking at the policy process which has led to the current WHOIS policy - because it seems to me that these overarching principles about public interest vs interests of particular stakeholders is in part answered by a look at (1) where does responsibility for Whois policy formation sit within the ICANN organisation (2) how do the relevant strands (gNSO, GAC, SSAC) that we see referenced in the background materials provided by staff fit together, and what role does the board play and (3) with regard to WHOIS policy, what mechanisms/processes are in place to ensure that the end result is made in the public interest? Please take a look at the draft Scope. I tried to save the changes, and I think they are there, but the screen went a bit funny, so for completeness, here is a copy of the complete scope as amended by me today (see below). Best regards Emily --------------------- The WHOIS Review Team (WRT) has been constituted under the Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers dated 30 September 2009 (AoC). Under paragraph 9.3.1 of the AoC, ICANN commits to organising "a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." Accordingly, the Scope of the Whois Review Team is to assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its implementation: is effective, meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and promotes consumer trust. The WRT will identify and document ICANN?s existing WHOIS policy. The WRT will identify and document ICANN's implementation of its Whois Policy. It will define and identify law enforcement, and the term "legitimate needs of law enforcement." It will define consumer trust and analyse what factors promote consumer trust in the context of the Whois. It will identify the areas, if any, in which the interests above may be in conflict with each other. It will assess applicable laws and analyze issues possibly including: - contractual obligations vs. national law obligations - differing global laws and ICANN obligations It will review the extent to which ICANN?s existing WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective in meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust. This assessment will include an evidence-based approach, and seek to identify good practice in other areas of the domain space (as a benchmarking tool). The assessment will keep in mind overarching principles set out in the AoC in relation to ICANN's policy, ie that "decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent" (paragraph 3(a)) "promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace" (paragraph 3(c)), and that the outcomes of ICANN's private coordinating process should "reflect the public interest...and not just the interests of a particular set of stakeholders" (paragraph 4). These principles set the context for the reviews (of which the WRT is one) performed under the AoC. The WRT will undertake an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information, and what impact such requirement have on the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promoting consumer trust. 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110102/7551cee4/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sun Jan 2 23:54:26 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:54:26 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work Message-ID: <20110102165426.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.bc27022ff1.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110102/55efcea6/attachment.html