From jbladel at godaddy.com  Mon Jan  3 18:01:57 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 11:01:57 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
Message-ID: <20110103110157.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.9190c6e922.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110103/75d37e1d/attachment.html 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Mon Jan  3 18:11:22 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 11:11:22 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
Message-ID: <20110103111122.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.91ed830a7a.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110103/de678369/attachment.html 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Mon Jan  3 18:22:01 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 11:22:01 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
Message-ID: <20110103112201.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.acafc9c558.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110103/c7a4fb35/attachment.html 

From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Tue Jan  4 19:13:04 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:13:04 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
In-Reply-To: <20110103112201.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.acafc9c558.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
References: <20110103112201.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.acafc9c558.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B7CCE65A@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>

All,

 I?m concerned that we are straying, somewhat significantly from what we agreed to during our informal meeting. I see our scope becoming ever more specific as opposed to ?open-ended? and ?concise? as we discussed with rough agreement (and was reported<https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Cartagena+-+Brainstorming+Notes>) during the Cartagena informal session.

I suggest we return to a concise scope, noting that we intend to be inclusive in our discussion, deliberation, and reporting.

I suggest the following:
__________________________

Scope

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.

This assessment will include 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.

Discussions, deliberations, and reporting will be conducted in a manner to facilitate inclusion of issues/concerns of the full range of stakeholders ensuring that the public interest is well-served.

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:22 AM
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work

Hi James,
My suggestion is that the element of "consumers" stated in our overall mission is relevant to "public interest".
-Lynn
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
Date: Mon, January 03, 2011 1:01 pm
To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>, "Emily Taylor" <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
Team:

I guess I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between "Public Interest" and the "Interests of the Stakeholders."  In my view, the component organizations (GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC, ALAC, etc.) and their subordinate organizations & constituencies, were the components of the "Public Interests."  Or are we saying that this term is more than the sum of its parts?

Looking forward to some clarifying dialogue on this.

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
From: <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>>
Date: Sun, January 02, 2011 5:54 pm
To: "Emily Taylor" <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>

Hi Emily,
I agree with your amendment regarding policy in the public interest rather than a particular set of stakeholders.
The questions you have outlined should spark a useful and necessary discussion at our meeting.
Kind regards,
Lynn

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
Date: Sun, January 02, 2011 12:43 pm
To: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>

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.
[cid:image001.jpg at 01CBAC00.5B859650]
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
telephone: 01865 582 811   mobile: 07540 049 322
emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>

________________________________
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110104/e73e8a6f/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 507 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110104/e73e8a6f/image001.jpg 

From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Tue Jan  4 19:32:26 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:32:26 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
In-Reply-To: <9FDB6BB4-C34E-45E5-BD80-B28EE7282D8C@etlaw.co.uk>
References: <9FDB6BB4-C34E-45E5-BD80-B28EE7282D8C@etlaw.co.uk>
Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B7CCE6B4@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>

 Comments:

Rather than pull additional text from the AOC, I suggest we add a link to it. There may be other pertinent sections that one or more of us would like to reference.

I'm not convinced that our reviewing the history of current WHOIS policy is either useful or relevant to our work. I'm concerned that such a review would be time-consuming yielding little useful information since our charge is to review "existing policy and implementation". (Note, I say this as one who is very fond of history.)

We should keep in mind, whether we review the ICANN history or not, that WHOIS (policy) and numerous other aspects of the DNS (Internet) predate ICANN and the other organizations responsible for the governance and "operation" of the Internet.

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:43 AM
To: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work

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.
[cid:image001.gif at 01CBAC02.920B3070]

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
telephone: 01865 582 811   mobile: 07540 049 322
emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110104/8f29f9bd/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5113 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110104/8f29f9bd/image001.gif 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Tue Jan  4 19:51:54 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:51:54 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
Message-ID: <20110104125154.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.cdb3970e8b.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110104/92d45048/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5113 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110104/92d45048/image001.gif 

From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Tue Jan  4 20:06:47 2011
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:06:47 -0200
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
In-Reply-To: <20110104125154.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.cdb3970e8b.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
References: <20110104125154.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.cdb3970e8b.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinMO=Z5YMMzT45QsZRMGAW0ZiiJbjLw6roudHQ4@mail.gmail.com>

Dear RT,

To discuss some important elements like "public interest" will lead us to a
desiderable historical review - from a specific point of view, conducted by
this team.

Besides that, I belive it could be interesting to harvest the most common
issues related to Whois around the web. User's opinion on the web as blogs,
discussions lists, etc. should be heard as an up-down process.

Most probably some issues are already addressed (my mistake, I'm researching
to reach your level), the problems are well known, but anyway we should
expect many, at least some conflicts of interest based on "who, how, why",

All the best in 2011,

Omar, representing the final user's view.



2011/1/4 <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>

> The excerpt of Emily's message that I believe will be useful for us is:
>
> 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?
>
> The historical information should help in answering those questions but
> agree that we do not need to take time at the
> meeting for a purely historical review of Whois.
>
> Regards,
> Lynn
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
> From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>
> Date: Tue, January 04, 2011 2:32 pm
> To: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>, RT4 WHOIS
> <rt4-whois at icann.org>
>
>   Comments:
>
> Rather than pull additional text from the AOC, I suggest we add a link to
> it. There may be other pertinent sections that one or more of us would like
> to reference.
>
> I?m not convinced that our reviewing the history of current WHOIS policy is
> either useful or relevant to our work. I?m concerned that such a review
> would be time-consuming yielding little useful information since our charge
> is to review ?existing policy and implementation?. (Note, I say this as one
> who is very fond of history.)
>
> We should keep in mind, whether we review the ICANN history or not, that
> WHOIS (policy) and numerous other aspects of the DNS (Internet) predate
> ICANN and the other organizations responsible for the governance and
> ?operation? of the Internet.
>
>   *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Emily Taylor
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:43 AM
> *To:* RT4 WHOIS
> *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
>
> 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.
>  [image: Emily Taylor Consultant (Internet Law and Governance)]
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> telephone: *01865 582 811*   mobile: *07540 049 322*
> *emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk* <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk> *www.etlaw.co.uk*<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>
>
>   ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110104/12b22a2a/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Wed Jan  5 15:15:28 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:15:28 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Summary of decisions to date
Message-ID: <8B883B2D-EB01-4522-8494-291D202F82F4@etlaw.co.uk>

Hi everyone

For the purposes of transparency to the community, and to assist team members in keeping track of what we have decided, I asked Alice to compile a list of Key Decisions, which I've put up on the Wiki. https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Summary+of+key+decisions+to+date Some of the links to other documents are broken right now - can someone take a look at them.

Alice noted that our adopted rules about expectations of the Chair and Vice Chair were due to be put up, but this doesn't seem to have been done.  Again, can I ask for a volunteer to look into this.

Please note that in our first call, we agreed a deadline to finish the report by 30 November 2011.

In the informal meeting at Cartagena, it was also agreed that "Efforts should be made on the list to advance the scope of work draft https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Scope+of+Whois+Review+Team into a tangible proposal ready for consideration at the first face-to-face meeting in London."

Kind 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/20110105/4ff4a62f/attachment.html 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Wed Jan  5 17:41:24 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 09:41:24 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and conference call
 with Strickling and Beckstrom
Message-ID: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Team Members:

1) The following ICANN staff members are looking forward to joining
you in London for your first formal meeting to provide substantive
information on Whois matters and relevant ICANN activities:

Denise Michel - Advisor to the President & CEO
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Support
Stacy Burnette - Director, Contractual Compliance

Olof and Alice, of course, also will be there to support the Team's
operational and administrative needs.

It would be helpful to receive this week input on what the Team would
like staff to cover at the meeting and any specific questions the Team
would like the staff to address.  While staff is committed to being as
responsive and helpful as possible, depending on the complexity of the
requests, staff may also provide follow-up answers and information in
writing after the meeting.

2) Following-up on a request by some Team members in Cartagena that
Assistant Secretary Strickling and CEO Beckstrom talk to the Team
about their "intent" regarding the Whois review language in the
Affirmation of Commitments, I have asked their respective schedulers
to try to find time for a brief conference call with the Team during
your London meeting.  Their staff are making every effort to
re-arrange schedules to get them both on the phone with you for a
brief chat.  I am assuming that, if their schedules can't be synced,
as a fall-back you would want to speak with them individually.  Please
let me know if this is not the case.

I look forward to seeing you all in London.

Regards,
Denise

Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President
denise.michel at icann.org
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct


From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Wed Jan  5 18:17:55 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:17:55 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and conference
	call with Strickling and Beckstrom
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8BEE8E9D-05EF-4F68-9460-A17DA8CE1918@etlaw.co.uk>

Dear Denise, Dear All

Denise, I am delighted to here that you and other members of the ICANN team will be in attendance at the London meeting, and appreciate your continued support of the Team's work.

All, I attach an updated draft of the London agenda for your information.  It is more or less the same as that circulated before Christmas, but makes a number of changes in response to comments:

- Later finish time on second day
- Inclusion of "producers" under item 3 (Developing the Definitions)
- Discussion with Larry Strickling is inserted as new item 4 (afternoon of first day).  This item is referred to in Denise's mail, and is carried over from the Cartagena meeting.  Denise, if Rod is available to join this discussion, he would be most welcome.  If not, we can schedule for another occasion.

Your other question, Denise, is I hope answered by the agenda on day 2 (item 6(a)).  If anything is unclear, Kathy or I will be happy to give you a briefing.

I look forward to receiving any final comments by the end of Friday.  In the absence of any comments, we will take this agenda as agreed prior to the meeting.

Kind regards

Emily



On 5 Jan 2011, at 17:41, Denise Michel wrote:

> Dear Team Members:
> 
> 1) The following ICANN staff members are looking forward to joining
> you in London for your first formal meeting to provide substantive
> information on Whois matters and relevant ICANN activities:
> 
> Denise Michel - Advisor to the President & CEO
> Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Support
> Stacy Burnette - Director, Contractual Compliance
> 
> Olof and Alice, of course, also will be there to support the Team's
> operational and administrative needs.
> 
> It would be helpful to receive this week input on what the Team would
> like staff to cover at the meeting and any specific questions the Team
> would like the staff to address.  While staff is committed to being as
> responsive and helpful as possible, depending on the complexity of the
> requests, staff may also provide follow-up answers and information in
> writing after the meeting.
> 
> 2) Following-up on a request by some Team members in Cartagena that
> Assistant Secretary Strickling and CEO Beckstrom talk to the Team
> about their "intent" regarding the Whois review language in the
> Affirmation of Commitments, I have asked their respective schedulers
> to try to find time for a brief conference call with the Team during
> your London meeting.  Their staff are making every effort to
> re-arrange schedules to get them both on the phone with you for a
> brief chat.  I am assuming that, if their schedules can't be synced,
> as a fall-back you would want to speak with them individually.  Please
> let me know if this is not the case.
> 
> I look forward to seeing you all in London.
> 
> Regards,
> Denise
> 
> Denise Michel
> ICANN
> Advisor to the President
> denise.michel at icann.org
> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
> +1.310.578.8632 direct
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110105/c76245e3/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda London REVISED DRAFT.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 29447 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/c76245e3/AgendaLondonREVISEDDRAFT.docx 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/c76245e3/attachment-0001.html 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Wed Jan  5 19:23:24 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:23:24 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and conference
 call with Strickling and Beckstrom
In-Reply-To: <8BEE8E9D-05EF-4F68-9460-A17DA8CE1918@etlaw.co.uk>
References: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com>
	<8BEE8E9D-05EF-4F68-9460-A17DA8CE1918@etlaw.co.uk>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinmpo_cTVnvYEaKgmHNuDgOraznPZBOJxpM7K52@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you for your response, Emily.

Could you clarify something for me ... in Cartagena I was told that
the Team really wanted to hear from Strickling and Beckstrom together.
Since Strckling has now been scheduled separately (and at a time
Beckstrom currently is not available), am I correct in assuming that
the Team has changed it's mind and will only be speaking with
Strickling during the London meeting?  (which is fine) And that we
don't need to try to find another time on Beckstrom's schedule on the
19th or 20th?  (and if this is the case, do you have another date in
mind?)

Thanks for clarifying.

Denise

Denise Michel
denise.michel at icann.org



On Wednesday, January 5, 2011, Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear Denise, Dear All
> Denise, I am delighted to here that you and other members of the ICANN team will be in attendance at the London meeting, and appreciate your continued support of the Team's work.
> All, I attach an updated draft of the London agenda for your information. ?It is more or less the same as that circulated before Christmas, but makes a number of changes in response to comments:
> - Later finish time on second day- Inclusion of "producers" under item 3 (Developing the Definitions)- Discussion with Larry Strickling is inserted as new item 4 (afternoon of first day). ?This item is referred to in Denise's mail, and is carried over from the Cartagena meeting. ?Denise, if Rod is available to join this discussion, he would be most welcome. ?If not, we can schedule for another occasion.
> Your other question, Denise, is I hope answered by the agenda on day 2 (item 6(a)). ?If anything is unclear, Kathy or I will be happy to give you a briefing.
> I look forward to receiving any final comments by the end of Friday. ?In the absence of any comments, we will take this agenda as agreed prior to the meeting.
> Kind regards
> Emily



From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Jan  5 19:35:22 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:35:22 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
Message-ID: <20110105123522.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.eec79f5e62.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/fdba0872/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5113 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/fdba0872/image001.gif 

From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Wed Jan  5 21:20:18 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:20:18 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and
	conference	call with Strickling and Beckstrom
In-Reply-To: <8BEE8E9D-05EF-4F68-9460-A17DA8CE1918@etlaw.co.uk>
References: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com>
	<8BEE8E9D-05EF-4F68-9460-A17DA8CE1918@etlaw.co.uk>
Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B7DD1F7E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>

Emily,

I see in the draft agenda that you and Kathy plan to present a proposal for meetings. Would it be possible to send that out in advance of the meeting, perhaps this week? My calendar is filling up and I continue to make other commitments as requests  come in.

At present, I have nothing blocked out for the WHOIS Review except ICANN meeting weeks. If we plan on meeting at other times, it would be good to know that as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Bill

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:18 AM
To: denise.michel at icann.org
Cc: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and conference call with Strickling and Beckstrom

Dear Denise, Dear All

Denise, I am delighted to here that you and other members of the ICANN team will be in attendance at the London meeting, and appreciate your continued support of the Team's work.

All, I attach an updated draft of the London agenda for your information.  It is more or less the same as that circulated before Christmas, but makes a number of changes in response to comments:

- Later finish time on second day
- Inclusion of "producers" under item 3 (Developing the Definitions)
- Discussion with Larry Strickling is inserted as new item 4 (afternoon of first day).  This item is referred to in Denise's mail, and is carried over from the Cartagena meeting.  Denise, if Rod is available to join this discussion, he would be most welcome.  If not, we can schedule for another occasion.

Your other question, Denise, is I hope answered by the agenda on day 2 (item 6(a)).  If anything is unclear, Kathy or I will be happy to give you a briefing.

I look forward to receiving any final comments by the end of Friday.  In the absence of any comments, we will take this agenda as agreed prior to the meeting.

Kind regards

Emily
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/11f5527a/attachment.html 

From kim at vonarx.ca  Wed Jan  5 21:21:58 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:21:58 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinMO=Z5YMMzT45QsZRMGAW0ZiiJbjLw6roudHQ4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110104125154.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.cdb3970e8b.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<AANLkTinMO=Z5YMMzT45QsZRMGAW0ZiiJbjLw6roudHQ4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54F077B7-6493-4B70-B5CF-983E246FF5EA@vonarx.ca>

Dear All: 

First let me wish the one's who celebrated it, a Merry Christmas and a happy new year.  Secondly, I would like to thank you all for your kind personal emails with respect to my current situation.  I very much appreciated it. 

Thirdly, I am currently in the process of trying to catch up on all of the discussions that have been going on and I must admit, I am having a hard time following all of the discussions strings, but I think I did get the general gist of most of them. 

I generally agree with Bill's comments about not revisiting the WHOIS history, however, I do believe that an understanding of the original reasons for the WHOIS and reasons for why it still is the way it is are important.  This to say, I don't think that requires an in-depth empirical look in to all the facets of the WHOIS issues that arose in the last decade or so, but we all need to have a firm understanding of its genesis and the general evolution of the policy and the reasons thereof. 

With respect to scope, I do agree that we need to establish narrow boundaries as otherwise we will find ourselves caught up in minutia which will bury us and prevent us from accomplishing anything substantial this year. 

Finally, with respect to the scope, I am not sure whether I am simply mis-reading it or not fully understand it, but I don't completely understand what our view is should be the final product.  Yes, we need to analysis empirical data and juxtapose that to the needs, wants, etc. of the stakeholders, but then what?  Are we going to simply provide an analysis and leave the rest to the board and staff or are we going to provide recommendations?  I submit that we should provide recommendations based on our findings even if those are just "next steps".  Anyway, I may have missed it in the current scope and/or other discussions strings, but I thought I should raise it just in case. 

Kim 


__________________________________

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you. 






On 2011-01-04, at 3:06 PM, Omar Kaminski wrote:

> Dear RT,
> 
> To discuss some important elements like "public interest" will lead us to a desiderable historical review - from a specific point of view, conducted by this team.
> 
> Besides that, I belive it could be interesting to harvest the most common issues related to Whois around the web. User's opinion on the web as blogs, discussions lists, etc. should be heard as an up-down process.
> 
> Most probably some issues are already addressed (my mistake, I'm researching to reach your level), the problems are well known, but anyway we should expect many, at least some conflicts of interest based on "who, how, why",
> 
> All the best in 2011,
> 
> Omar, representing the final user's view.
> 
> 
> 
> 2011/1/4 <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>
> The excerpt of Emily's message that I believe will be useful for us is:
> 
> 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?
> 
> The historical information should help in answering those questions but agree that we do not need to take time at the
> meeting for a purely historical review of Whois.
> 
> Regards,
> Lynn
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
> From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>
> Date: Tue, January 04, 2011 2:32 pm
> To: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>, RT4 WHOIS
> <rt4-whois at icann.org>
> 
>  Comments:
>  
> Rather than pull additional text from the AOC, I suggest we add a link to it. There may be other pertinent sections that one or more of us would like to reference.
>  
> I?m not convinced that our reviewing the history of current WHOIS policy is either useful or relevant to our work. I?m concerned that such a review would be time-consuming yielding little useful information since our charge is to review ?existing policy and implementation?. (Note, I say this as one who is very fond of history.)
>  
> We should keep in mind, whether we review the ICANN history or not, that WHOIS (policy) and numerous other aspects of the DNS (Internet) predate ICANN and the other organizations responsible for the governance and ?operation? of the Internet.
>  
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:43 AM
> To: RT4 WHOIS
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
>  
> 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
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/99920925/attachment.html 

From kKleiman at pir.org  Wed Jan  5 21:25:05 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:25:05 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
In-Reply-To: <20110105123522.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.eec79f5e62.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20110105123522.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.eec79f5e62.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DA52@tetra.PIR.com>

Hi James, Bill and All,

Happy New Year!  I hope it is a wonderful one for you, your families, and our Review Team!

 

I like the Scope of Work as we defined it in our Cartagena sessions (in person and in the phone group). I thought it was narrowly tailored, but also broad enough to look at the definitions, and the policy issues.  

 

I think the history is relevant, but again in a narrow sense. The Whois issue has a history, a technical basis, a policy basis? and readers of our report, I think, will need some of this background to understand the report and help understand the issues we (the Review Team and the ICANN Community) are wrestling with.

 

All the best,

Kathy

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:35 PM
To: Smith,Bill
Cc: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work

 

Team:

I strongly support Bil's comments about not revisiting the history of how current WHOIS policies came to be.  This is neither an effective use of our time, nor part of our remit.  I also support his earlier statements about our scope of work, and the need to establish narrow boundaries on what is under review.


Thanks--

 

J.

 

	-------- Original Message --------
	Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
	From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com> >
	Date: Tue, January 04, 2011 1:32 pm
	To: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk <mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk> >, RT4 WHOIS
	<rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org> >

	 Comments:

	 

	Rather than pull additional text from the AOC, I suggest we add a link to it. There may be other pertinent sections that one or more of us would like to reference.

	 

	I?m not convinced that our reviewing the history of current WHOIS policy is either useful or relevant to our work. I?m concerned that such a review would be time-consuming yielding little useful information since our charge is to review ?existing policy and implementation?. (Note, I say this as one who is very fond of history.)

	 

	We should keep in mind, whether we review the ICANN history or not, that WHOIS (policy) and numerous other aspects of the DNS (Internet) predate ICANN and the other organizations responsible for the governance and ?operation? of the Internet.

	 

	From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
	Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:43 AM
	To: RT4 WHOIS
	Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work

	 

	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 <mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>  www.etlaw.co.uk <http://www.etlaw.co.uk> 

	 

	
________________________________


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/8dec5274/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 5113 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/8dec5274/attachment.gif 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Jan  5 21:29:44 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:29:44 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
Message-ID: <20110105142944.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.da623bcdd2.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/83a6f6bb/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5113 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/83a6f6bb/image001.gif 

From kKleiman at pir.org  Wed Jan  5 21:39:52 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:39:52 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance - and drafting
	questions
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DA60@tetra.PIR.com>

Hi Denise,
We appreciate the ICANN Staff who will be joining us for the meeting in
London. It is very good that we will have strong support from both
Compliance and Policy staffs. We have lots of questions!

Hi All, 
I was hoping that we (Review Team members) might work on these
questions.

Is there someone who would like to take the lead on:
- drafting questions for Compliance; 
And someone else 
- drafting questions for Policy? 

A few questions are in the agenda, but only an outline.  Tx for these
contributions - and for posting to our list!

Best,
Kathy

-----Original Message-----
From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Denise Michel
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 12:41 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and conference
call with Strickling and Beckstrom

Dear Team Members:

1) The following ICANN staff members are looking forward to joining
you in London for your first formal meeting to provide substantive
information on Whois matters and relevant ICANN activities:

Denise Michel - Advisor to the President & CEO
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Support
Stacy Burnette - Director, Contractual Compliance

Olof and Alice, of course, also will be there to support the Team's
operational and administrative needs.

It would be helpful to receive this week input on what the Team would
like staff to cover at the meeting and any specific questions the Team
would like the staff to address.  While staff is committed to being as
responsive and helpful as possible, depending on the complexity of the
requests, staff may also provide follow-up answers and information in
writing after the meeting.

2) Following-up on a request by some Team members in Cartagena that
Assistant Secretary Strickling and CEO Beckstrom talk to the Team
about their "intent" regarding the Whois review language in the
Affirmation of Commitments, I have asked their respective schedulers
to try to find time for a brief conference call with the Team during
your London meeting.  Their staff are making every effort to
re-arrange schedules to get them both on the phone with you for a
brief chat.  I am assuming that, if their schedules can't be synced,
as a fall-back you would want to speak with them individually.  Please
let me know if this is not the case.

I look forward to seeing you all in London.

Regards,
Denise

Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President
denise.michel at icann.org
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois



From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Jan  5 21:50:13 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:50:13 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance - and drafting
	questions
Message-ID: <20110105145013.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.108b2a1bb5.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/6f547eb5/attachment.html 

From kKleiman at pir.org  Wed Jan  5 21:55:15 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:55:15 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- call with Mr. Strickling
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DA68@tetra.PIR.com>

Hi Denise,
We (Emily and I) were contacted by Fiona Alexander of NTIA who was
following up on our original request for Mr. Strickling's time. Given
how busy schedules are, we took the time we could -- 9:30-10:30am
Eastern, 2:30-3:30pm GMT, on our first day in London.  It is nice to
have this time, and good to know we can ask our questions to Mr.
Strickling.

All - he would like a sense of the questions ahead of time -- I would be
happy to be the collector -- feel free to send to me and I'll compile
and pass on.

We would, of course, welcome the opportunity to talk further with Rod!

Best,
Kathy

-----Original Message-----
From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Denise Michel
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 12:41 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and conference
call with Strickling and Beckstrom

Dear Team Members:

1) The following ICANN staff members are looking forward to joining
you in London for your first formal meeting to provide substantive
information on Whois matters and relevant ICANN activities:

Denise Michel - Advisor to the President & CEO
Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Support
Stacy Burnette - Director, Contractual Compliance

Olof and Alice, of course, also will be there to support the Team's
operational and administrative needs.

It would be helpful to receive this week input on what the Team would
like staff to cover at the meeting and any specific questions the Team
would like the staff to address.  While staff is committed to being as
responsive and helpful as possible, depending on the complexity of the
requests, staff may also provide follow-up answers and information in
writing after the meeting.

2) Following-up on a request by some Team members in Cartagena that
Assistant Secretary Strickling and CEO Beckstrom talk to the Team
about their "intent" regarding the Whois review language in the
Affirmation of Commitments, I have asked their respective schedulers
to try to find time for a brief conference call with the Team during
your London meeting.  Their staff are making every effort to
re-arrange schedules to get them both on the phone with you for a
brief chat.  I am assuming that, if their schedules can't be synced,
as a fall-back you would want to speak with them individually.  Please
let me know if this is not the case.

I look forward to seeing you all in London.

Regards,
Denise

Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President
denise.michel at icann.org
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois



From kKleiman at pir.org  Wed Jan  5 21:59:04 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:59:04 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance
	andconference	call with Strickling and Beckstrom
In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B7DD1F7E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>
References: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com><8BEE8E9D-05EF-4F68-9460-A17DA8CE1918@etlaw.co.uk>
	<39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B7DD1F7E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>
Message-ID: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DA6D@tetra.PIR.com>

Bill, 

We can certainly try, but the purpose of sharing a draft at the London
meeting was to see whether people agreed with the ideas we share for F2F
and conference call meetings.  We can circulate something, but I don't
think we will finalize until then. 

 

Best,

Kathy

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Smith, Bill
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 4:20 PM
To: Emily Taylor; denise.michel at icann.org
Cc: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance
andconference call with Strickling and Beckstrom

 

Emily,

 

I see in the draft agenda that you and Kathy plan to present a proposal
for meetings. Would it be possible to send that out in advance of the
meeting, perhaps this week? My calendar is filling up and I continue to
make other commitments as requests  come in. 

 

At present, I have nothing blocked out for the WHOIS Review except ICANN
meeting weeks. If we plan on meeting at other times, it would be good to
know that as soon as possible.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:18 AM
To: denise.michel at icann.org
Cc: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and
conference call with Strickling and Beckstrom

 

Dear Denise, Dear All

 

Denise, I am delighted to here that you and other members of the ICANN
team will be in attendance at the London meeting, and appreciate your
continued support of the Team's work.

 

All, I attach an updated draft of the London agenda for your
information.  It is more or less the same as that circulated before
Christmas, but makes a number of changes in response to comments:

 

- Later finish time on second day

- Inclusion of "producers" under item 3 (Developing the Definitions)

- Discussion with Larry Strickling is inserted as new item 4 (afternoon
of first day).  This item is referred to in Denise's mail, and is
carried over from the Cartagena meeting.  Denise, if Rod is available to
join this discussion, he would be most welcome.  If not, we can schedule
for another occasion.

 

Your other question, Denise, is I hope answered by the agenda on day 2
(item 6(a)).  If anything is unclear, Kathy or I will be happy to give
you a briefing.

 

I look forward to receiving any final comments by the end of Friday.  In
the absence of any comments, we will take this agenda as agreed prior to
the meeting.

 

Kind regards

 

Emily

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/0389b789/attachment.html 

From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Wed Jan  5 22:12:10 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:12:10 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance
	andconference	call with Strickling and Beckstrom
In-Reply-To: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DA6D@tetra.PIR.com>
References: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com><8BEE8E9D-05EF-4F68-9460-A17DA8CE1918@etlaw.co.uk>
	<39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B7DD1F7E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>
	<DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DA6D@tetra.PIR.com>
Message-ID: <60C48371-EDAB-4DE6-BDC7-EB57AA80D4C4@paypal.com>

Kathy,

I suggest that we can test for agreement via email, phone, or in-person. If a proposal won't be available until London, there's no need to consider sending earlier.

My point is that getting *something* out sooner, rather than later is desirable so that we may begin to consider this as a group.

Re a conference call proposal, I believe one was made some time ago to schedule calls on a set day/time at least every fortnight (with the option to hold additional calls on the "off" weeks). We had found a day/time that seemed to work for all or most people and I hope we can continue with that "plan".

Regards,

Bill

On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

Bill,
We can certainly try, but the purpose of sharing a draft at the London meeting was to see whether people agreed with the ideas we share for F2F and conference call meetings.  We can circulate something, but I don?t think we will finalize until then.

Best,
Kathy

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 4:20 PM
To: Emily Taylor; denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
Cc: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance andconference call with Strickling and Beckstrom

Emily,

I see in the draft agenda that you and Kathy plan to present a proposal for meetings. Would it be possible to send that out in advance of the meeting, perhaps this week? My calendar is filling up and I continue to make other commitments as requests  come in.

At present, I have nothing blocked out for the WHOIS Review except ICANN meeting weeks. If we plan on meeting at other times, it would be good to know that as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Bill

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:18 AM
To: denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
Cc: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and conference call with Strickling and Beckstrom

Dear Denise, Dear All

Denise, I am delighted to here that you and other members of the ICANN team will be in attendance at the London meeting, and appreciate your continued support of the Team's work.

All, I attach an updated draft of the London agenda for your information.  It is more or less the same as that circulated before Christmas, but makes a number of changes in response to comments:

- Later finish time on second day
- Inclusion of "producers" under item 3 (Developing the Definitions)
- Discussion with Larry Strickling is inserted as new item 4 (afternoon of first day).  This item is referred to in Denise's mail, and is carried over from the Cartagena meeting.  Denise, if Rod is available to join this discussion, he would be most welcome.  If not, we can schedule for another occasion.

Your other question, Denise, is I hope answered by the agenda on day 2 (item 6(a)).  If anything is unclear, Kathy or I will be happy to give you a briefing.

I look forward to receiving any final comments by the end of Friday.  In the absence of any comments, we will take this agenda as agreed prior to the meeting.

Kind regards

Emily




From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Wed Jan  5 22:51:08 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:51:08 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Summary of decisions to date
In-Reply-To: <8B883B2D-EB01-4522-8494-291D202F82F4@etlaw.co.uk>
References: <8B883B2D-EB01-4522-8494-291D202F82F4@etlaw.co.uk>
Message-ID: <2A0B3A82-9486-465D-9174-F30A32239518@paypal.com>

Links to docs fixed (though we're still missing the chair/vc doc.

On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:15 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:

Hi everyone

For the purposes of transparency to the community, and to assist team members in keeping track of what we have decided, I asked Alice to compile a list of Key Decisions, which I've put up on the Wiki. https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Summary+of+key+decisions+to+date Some of the links to other documents are broken right now - can someone take a look at them.

Alice noted that our adopted rules about expectations of the Chair and Vice Chair were due to be put up, but this doesn't seem to have been done.  Again, can I ask for a volunteer to look into this.

Please note that in our first call, we agreed a deadline to finish the report by 30 November 2011.

In the informal meeting at Cartagena, it was also agreed that "Efforts should be made on the list to advance the scope of work draft https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Scope+of+Whois+Review+Team into a tangible proposal ready for consideration at the first face-to-face meeting in London."

Kind regards

Emily
[http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/logo310.gif]

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
telephone: 01865 582 811   mobile: 07540 049 322
emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>

<ATT00001..txt>




From kim at vonarx.ca  Wed Jan  5 20:23:56 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:23:56 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinMO=Z5YMMzT45QsZRMGAW0ZiiJbjLw6roudHQ4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110104125154.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.cdb3970e8b.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<AANLkTinMO=Z5YMMzT45QsZRMGAW0ZiiJbjLw6roudHQ4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <328FA290-234D-42C3-9739-20F577B5A9EE@vonarx.ca>

Dear All: 

First let me wish the one's who celebrated it, a Merry Christmas and a happy new year.  Secondly, I would like to thank you all for your kind personal emails with respect to my current situation.  I very much appreciated it. 

Thirdly, I am currently in the process of trying to catch up on all of the discussions that have been going on and I must admit, I am having a hard time following all of the discussions strings, but I think I did get the general gist of most of them. 

I generally agree with Bill's comments about not revisiting the WHOIS history, however, I do believe that an understanding of the original reasons for the WHOIS and reasons for why it still is the way it is are important.  This to say, I don't think that requires an in-depth empirical look in to all the facets of the WHOIS issues that arose in the last decade or so, but we all need to have a firm understanding of its genesis and the general evolution of the policy and the reasons thereof. 

With respect to scope, I do agree that we need to establish narrow boundaries as otherwise we will find ourselves caught up in minutia which will bury us and prevent us from accomplishing anything substantial this year. 

Finally, with respect to the scope, I am not sure whether I am simply mis-reading it or not fully understand it, but I don't completely understand what our view is should be the final product.  Yes, we need to analysis empirical data and juxtapose that to the needs, wants, etc. of the stakeholders, but then what?  Are we going to simply provide an analysis and leave the rest to the board and staff or are we going to provide recommendations?  I submit that we should provide recommendations based on our findings even if those are just "next steps".  Anyway, I may have missed it in the current scope and/or other discussions strings, but I thought I should raise it just in case. 

Kim 





__________________________________

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you. 






On 2011-01-04, at 3:06 PM, Omar Kaminski wrote:

> Dear RT,
> 
> To discuss some important elements like "public interest" will lead us to a desiderable historical review - from a specific point of view, conducted by this team.
> 
> Besides that, I belive it could be interesting to harvest the most common issues related to Whois around the web. User's opinion on the web as blogs, discussions lists, etc. should be heard as an up-down process.
> 
> Most probably some issues are already addressed (my mistake, I'm researching to reach your level), the problems are well known, but anyway we should expect many, at least some conflicts of interest based on "who, how, why",
> 
> All the best in 2011,
> 
> Omar, representing the final user's view.
> 
> 
> 
> 2011/1/4 <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>
> The excerpt of Emily's message that I believe will be useful for us is:
> 
> 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?
> 
> The historical information should help in answering those questions but agree that we do not need to take time at the
> meeting for a purely historical review of Whois.
> 
> Regards,
> Lynn
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
> From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>
> Date: Tue, January 04, 2011 2:32 pm
> To: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>, RT4 WHOIS
> <rt4-whois at icann.org>
> 
>  Comments:
>  
> Rather than pull additional text from the AOC, I suggest we add a link to it. There may be other pertinent sections that one or more of us would like to reference.
>  
> I?m not convinced that our reviewing the history of current WHOIS policy is either useful or relevant to our work. I?m concerned that such a review would be time-consuming yielding little useful information since our charge is to review ?existing policy and implementation?. (Note, I say this as one who is very fond of history.)
>  
> We should keep in mind, whether we review the ICANN history or not, that WHOIS (policy) and numerous other aspects of the DNS (Internet) predate ICANN and the other organizations responsible for the governance and ?operation? of the Internet.
>  
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:43 AM
> To: RT4 WHOIS
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
>  
> 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
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110105/7d565fb2/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Thu Jan  6 09:58:38 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:58:38 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance andconference
	call with Strickling and Beckstrom
In-Reply-To: <60C48371-EDAB-4DE6-BDC7-EB57AA80D4C4@paypal.com>
References: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com><8BEE8E9D-05EF-4F68-9460-A17DA8CE1918@etlaw.co.uk>
	<39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B7DD1F7E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>
	<DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DA6D@tetra.PIR.com>
	<60C48371-EDAB-4DE6-BDC7-EB57AA80D4C4@paypal.com>
Message-ID: <0F98804F-C3F2-41F8-8D8A-BB893E795346@etlaw.co.uk>

Hi Bill

Kathy and I will do our best to get some ideas out there to the group prior to the meeting.  As Kathy said, these could only be proposals until the group has the chance to discuss (unless we manage to all agree it on the list), but it will certainly get the ball rolling.

Kind regards

Emily

On 5 Jan 2011, at 22:12, Smith, Bill wrote:

> Kathy,
> 
> I suggest that we can test for agreement via email, phone, or in-person. If a proposal won't be available until London, there's no need to consider sending earlier.
> 
> My point is that getting *something* out sooner, rather than later is desirable so that we may begin to consider this as a group.
> 
> Re a conference call proposal, I believe one was made some time ago to schedule calls on a set day/time at least every fortnight (with the option to hold additional calls on the "off" weeks). We had found a day/time that seemed to work for all or most people and I hope we can continue with that "plan".
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 
> Bill,
> We can certainly try, but the purpose of sharing a draft at the London meeting was to see whether people agreed with the ideas we share for F2F and conference call meetings.  We can circulate something, but I don?t think we will finalize until then.
> 
> Best,
> Kathy
> 
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 4:20 PM
> To: Emily Taylor; denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
> Cc: RT4 WHOIS
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance andconference call with Strickling and Beckstrom
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I see in the draft agenda that you and Kathy plan to present a proposal for meetings. Would it be possible to send that out in advance of the meeting, perhaps this week? My calendar is filling up and I continue to make other commitments as requests  come in.
> 
> At present, I have nothing blocked out for the WHOIS Review except ICANN meeting weeks. If we plan on meeting at other times, it would be good to know that as soon as possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:18 AM
> To: denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
> Cc: RT4 WHOIS
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and conference call with Strickling and Beckstrom
> 
> Dear Denise, Dear All
> 
> Denise, I am delighted to here that you and other members of the ICANN team will be in attendance at the London meeting, and appreciate your continued support of the Team's work.
> 
> All, I attach an updated draft of the London agenda for your information.  It is more or less the same as that circulated before Christmas, but makes a number of changes in response to comments:
> 
> - Later finish time on second day
> - Inclusion of "producers" under item 3 (Developing the Definitions)
> - Discussion with Larry Strickling is inserted as new item 4 (afternoon of first day).  This item is referred to in Denise's mail, and is carried over from the Cartagena meeting.  Denise, if Rod is available to join this discussion, he would be most welcome.  If not, we can schedule for another occasion.
> 
> Your other question, Denise, is I hope answered by the agenda on day 2 (item 6(a)).  If anything is unclear, Kathy or I will be happy to give you a briefing.
> 
> I look forward to receiving any final comments by the end of Friday.  In the absence of any comments, we will take this agenda as agreed prior to the meeting.
> 
> Kind 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/20110106/cafd0451/attachment.html 

From olof.nordling at icann.org  Thu Jan  6 11:19:39 2011
From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 03:19:39 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Travel support and expense reimbursement
Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D358EB2C30@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Dear all,

With our London meeting coming up, I am sure you will find the attached expense reimbursement form of interest, as well as some practical hints about how to use it:
After the meeting, please list your expenses on this form (lodging, meals, travel - unless already covered), attach scanned copies of the receipts and mail to accountspayable at icann.org<mailto:accountspayable at icann.org> (please also copy Alice and me) while clearly stating in the mail your bank account details for the transfer. Please note on the form that you can change the "disbursement currency" to the currency of your choice - and also that there is a link on the form to a currency conversion website to make life a little easier.

Happy to answer any questions you may have on this, of course.

For more about ICANN's travel support rules, please see the latest version at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guidelines-fy11-v2-01nov10-en.pdf .

Very best regards -  wishing you safe travels and a really good 2011!

Olof


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110106/b3d4c02c/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Reimbursement Form.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 67072 bytes
Desc: Reimbursement Form.xls
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110106/b3d4c02c/ReimbursementForm.xls 

From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Thu Jan  6 15:28:50 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 08:28:50 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Travel support and expense reimbursement
In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D358EB2C30@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D358EB2C30@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <6EC1244B-F613-4949-B745-05FBAB249CB3@paypal.com>

I would (strongly) suggest that we use an "out of band" channel to send bank account details. Email is notoriously insecure.

On Jan 6, 2011, at 3:19 AM, Olof Nordling wrote:

Dear all,

With our London meeting coming up, I am sure you will find the attached expense reimbursement form of interest, as well as some practical hints about how to use it:
After the meeting, please list your expenses on this form (lodging, meals, travel ? unless already covered), attach scanned copies of the receipts and mail to accountspayable at icann.org<mailto:accountspayable at icann.org> (please also copy Alice and me) while clearly stating in the mail your bank account details for the transfer. Please note on the form that you can change the ?disbursement currency? to the currency of your choice ? and also that there is a link on the form to a currency conversion website to make life a little easier.

Happy to answer any questions you may have on this, of course.

For more about ICANN?s travel support rules, please see the latest version at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guidelines-fy11-v2-01nov10-en.pdf .

Very best regards -  wishing you safe travels and a really good 2011!

Olof


<Reimbursement Form.xls><ATT00001..txt>




From kKleiman at pir.org  Thu Jan  6 18:05:50 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:05:50 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
Message-ID: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DB34@tetra.PIR.com>

Hi All,

Happy New Year again!  Bill has inspired me - there are issues we should
be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for
the meeting.  Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would
benefit from advanced planning.  They are substantive and speaker agenda
items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare
their presentations).

 

Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel inspired)?
Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem
appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy
needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide
will give us something to work from - a rough draft.

 

I propose 1/11 as the deadline - and then a day or two to comment as a
group (and then send on to the speakers).  Again, rough draft for
discussion purposes is the goal.... a starting point to our discussion
in London!

 

Here's the list of subjects.  Please let me and Emily know (on or off
list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you!

              

I. Definitions - a working set of definitions, background, scope (see
initial ideas in Agenda):

1.                         A. Producers of Whois Data _____________
(Volunteer(s))

2.                         B. Law Enforcement _____________
(Volunteer(s))

3.                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________
(Volunteer(s))

4.                         D. Applicable laws _____________
(Volunteer(s))

 

II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations
to our needs):

5.                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:
James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?)

6.                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy
& History: _____________ (Volunteer(s))

7.                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker

8.                         D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still
"invited," but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s))

9.                         E. Questions for Department of
Commerce/Lawrence Strickling

 

III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings

Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don't mind my
volunteering you).

 

IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:

Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

 

Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything? 

 

Best and tx!

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org
<http://www.pir.org>  |  

 

Find us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>   |  .ORG Blog
<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>  | Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>  |
YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>  | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz>  |

 

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public
Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then
delete.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110106/67cca8f9/attachment.html 

From kim at vonarx.ca  Thu Jan  6 21:46:37 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:46:37 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
In-Reply-To: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DB34@tetra.PIR.com>
References: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DB34@tetra.PIR.com>
Message-ID: <0F431758-989B-4D8E-B932-C4FA93C838CF@vonarx.ca>

Hi Kathy et al: 

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for, but I'd be happy to take on Law Enforcement and, as I understand the purpose of this, I will try to come up with some kind of very rough wireframe proposal which can guide and facilitate a discussion.  It would be great if Sharon would join me in that venture as, I believe, she would have the most relevant experience in that sector. 

Kim 



__________________________________

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you. 






On 2011-01-06, at 1:05 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Hi All,
> Happy New Year again!  Bill has inspired me ? there are issues we should be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for the meeting.  Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would  benefit from advanced planning.  They are substantive and speaker agenda items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare their presentations).
>  
> Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel inspired)?  Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide will give us something to work from ? a rough draft.
>  
> I propose 1/11 as the deadline ? and then a day or two to comment as a group (and then send on to the speakers).  Again, rough draft for discussion purposes is the goal?. a starting point to our discussion in London!
>  
> Here?s the list of subjects.  Please let me and Emily know (on or off list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you!
>               
> I. Definitions ? a working set of definitions, background, scope (see initial ideas in Agenda):
> 1.                         A. Producers of Whois Data _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 2.                         B. Law Enforcement _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 3.                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 4.                         D. Applicable laws _____________ (Volunteer(s))
>  
> II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations to our needs):
> 5.                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:  James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?)
> 6.                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy & History: _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 7.                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker
> 8.                         D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still ?invited,? but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 9.                         E. Questions for Department of Commerce/Lawrence Strickling
>  
> III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings
> Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don?t mind my volunteering you).
>  
> IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:
> Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))
>  
>  
> Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything?
>  
> Best and tx!
>  
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG, The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org | 
>  
> Find us on Facebook  |  .ORG Blog | Flickr | YouTube | Twitter |
>  
> Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110106/5a720388/attachment.html 

From kKleiman at pir.org  Thu Jan  6 21:53:05 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:53:05 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
In-Reply-To: <0F431758-989B-4D8E-B932-C4FA93C838CF@vonarx.ca>
References: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DB34@tetra.PIR.com>
	<0F431758-989B-4D8E-B932-C4FA93C838CF@vonarx.ca>
Message-ID: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DBB0@tetra.PIR.com>

Great Kim, you and Sharon would be great team to rough out an outline of
law enforcement definitions, and what "serving legitimate law
enforcement" interests might mean.  Tx you!

 

I think Sharon may be out of town, so her response may be coming in a
bit... great tx to all Sharon has done in setting upour meeting!

 

More volunteers?  Lots of great issues yet to define!

 

Best,

Kathy

 

From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 4:47 PM
To: Kathy Kleiman
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
Importance: High

 

Hi Kathy et al: 

 

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for, but I'd be happy to take
on Law Enforcement and, as I understand the purpose of this, I will try
to come up with some kind of very rough wireframe proposal which can
guide and facilitate a discussion.  It would be great if Sharon would
join me in that venture as, I believe, she would have the most relevant
experience in that sector. 

 

Kim 

 

 


__________________________________

 

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever
works for you. 

 

 

 





 

On 2011-01-06, at 1:05 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:





Hi All,

Happy New Year again!  Bill has inspired me - there are issues we should
be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for
the meeting.  Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would
benefit from advanced planning.  They are substantive and speaker agenda
items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare
their presentations).

 

Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel inspired)?
Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem
appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy
needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide
will give us something to work from - a rough draft.

 

I propose 1/11 as the deadline - and then a day or two to comment as a
group (and then send on to the speakers).  Again, rough draft for
discussion purposes is the goal.... a starting point to our discussion
in London!

 

Here's the list of subjects.  Please let me and Emily know (on or off
list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you!

              

I. Definitions - a working set of definitions, background, scope (see
initial ideas in Agenda):

1.                         A. Producers of Whois Data _____________
(Volunteer(s))

2.                         B. Law Enforcement _____________
(Volunteer(s))

3.                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________
(Volunteer(s))

4.                         D. Applicable laws _____________
(Volunteer(s))

 

II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations
to our needs):

5.                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:
James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?)

6.                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy
& History: _____________ (Volunteer(s))

7.                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker

8.                         D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still
"invited," but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s))

9.                         E. Questions for Department of
Commerce/Lawrence Strickling

 

III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings

Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don't mind my
volunteering you).

 

IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:

Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

 

Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything?

 

Best and tx!

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org
<http://www.pir.org>  | 

 

Find us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>   |  .ORG Blog
<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>  | Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>  |
YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>  | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz>  |

 

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public
Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then
delete.

 

_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110106/c95a829f/attachment.html 

From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Thu Jan  6 21:54:30 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 14:54:30 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Summary of decisions to date
In-Reply-To: <2A0B3A82-9486-465D-9174-F30A32239518@paypal.com>
References: <8B883B2D-EB01-4522-8494-291D202F82F4@etlaw.co.uk>
	<2A0B3A82-9486-465D-9174-F30A32239518@paypal.com>
Message-ID: <3C5E6EF1-D131-4932-B6DD-B05101808222@paypal.com>

Attached please find a set of guidelines that Susan Kawaguchi sent to the list on 5 Nov 2010. It contains a description of chair responsibilities and a number of other items that we have discussed at various times. Would the group like me to put this in Wiki Format and find an appropriate spot for it?

I have looked at it in any detail but believe it is the document Emily was referencing. If so, putting it on the Wiki would fix the remaining broken link.

I'd also be willing to edit this document or break it into several documents if that makes sense.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WRT Guidelines 11310docx.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 21119 bytes
Desc: WRT Guidelines 11310docx.docx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110106/e1cef5d5/WRTGuidelines11310docx.docx 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001..txt
Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110106/e1cef5d5/ATT00001..txt 

From kim at vonarx.ca  Thu Jan  6 21:56:02 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:56:02 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
In-Reply-To: <0F431758-989B-4D8E-B932-C4FA93C838CF@vonarx.ca>
References: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DB34@tetra.PIR.com>
	<0F431758-989B-4D8E-B932-C4FA93C838CF@vonarx.ca>
Message-ID: <55414935-C1FF-4022-AB30-D2D74F07CD8C@vonarx.ca>

I should add, I would also be happy to start the "applicable law", but I think that is a much larger task and requires as many people as possible so that we can divide up the continents (at least) in to different sections. 

Kim  

__________________________________

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you. 






On 2011-01-06, at 4:46 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote:

> Hi Kathy et al: 
> 
> I am not exactly sure what you are looking for, but I'd be happy to take on Law Enforcement and, as I understand the purpose of this, I will try to come up with some kind of very rough wireframe proposal which can guide and facilitate a discussion.  It would be great if Sharon would join me in that venture as, I believe, she would have the most relevant experience in that sector. 
> 
> Kim 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2011-01-06, at 1:05 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>> Happy New Year again!  Bill has inspired me ? there are issues we should be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for the meeting.  Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would  benefit from advanced planning.  They are substantive and speaker agenda items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare their presentations).
>>  
>> Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel inspired)?  Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide will give us something to work from ? a rough draft.
>>  
>> I propose 1/11 as the deadline ? and then a day or two to comment as a group (and then send on to the speakers).  Again, rough draft for discussion purposes is the goal?. a starting point to our discussion in London!
>>  
>> Here?s the list of subjects.  Please let me and Emily know (on or off list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you!
>>               
>> I. Definitions ? a working set of definitions, background, scope (see initial ideas in Agenda):
>> 1.                         A. Producers of Whois Data _____________ (Volunteer(s))
>> 2.                         B. Law Enforcement _____________ (Volunteer(s))
>> 3.                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________ (Volunteer(s))
>> 4.                         D. Applicable laws _____________ (Volunteer(s))
>>  
>> II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations to our needs):
>> 5.                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:  James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?)
>> 6.                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy & History: _____________ (Volunteer(s))
>> 7.                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker
>> 8.                         D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still ?invited,? but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s))
>> 9.                         E. Questions for Department of Commerce/Lawrence Strickling
>>  
>> III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings
>> Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don?t mind my volunteering you).
>>  
>> IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:
>> Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))
>>  
>>  
>> Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything?
>>  
>> Best and tx!
>>  
>> Kathy Kleiman
>> Director of Policy
>> .ORG, The Public Interest Registry
>> Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org | 
>>  
>> Find us on Facebook  |  .ORG Blog | Flickr | YouTube | Twitter |
>>  
>> Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rt4-whois mailing list
>> Rt4-whois at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110106/6e07ae67/attachment.html 

From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Thu Jan  6 23:20:41 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:20:41 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
In-Reply-To: <55414935-C1FF-4022-AB30-D2D74F07CD8C@vonarx.ca>
References: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DB34@tetra.PIR.com>
	<0F431758-989B-4D8E-B932-C4FA93C838CF@vonarx.ca>
	<55414935-C1FF-4022-AB30-D2D74F07CD8C@vonarx.ca>
Message-ID: <7A0D9CF7-9D81-44F6-B856-0DEC5CED9655@paypal.com>

One possible interpretation of "applicable law" is to consider the AOC a "contract" and that the term simply references the jurisdiction for dispute resolution. As such, it might be boilerplate holdover from a prior agreement and would serve to limit the laws in question.

Another interpretation is to look at the AOC as a promise, and that ICANN does not wish to be required to engage in illegal activity in order to fulfill its obligation. With this interpretation, there wouldn't be a jurisdictional limit and as a consequence, a larger set of laws would be involved.

In either case, attempting to list all such laws seems a futile task since the law rather lives and breathes based on precedent, appeal, reversal, and new legislation.

On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote:

I should add, I would also be happy to start the "applicable law", but I think that is a much larger task and requires as many people as possible so that we can divide up the continents (at least) in to different sections.

Kim

__________________________________

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you.






On 2011-01-06, at 4:46 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote:

Hi Kathy et al:

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for, but I'd be happy to take on Law Enforcement and, as I understand the purpose of this, I will try to come up with some kind of very rough wireframe proposal which can guide and facilitate a discussion.  It would be great if Sharon would join me in that venture as, I believe, she would have the most relevant experience in that sector.

Kim



__________________________________

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you.






On 2011-01-06, at 1:05 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

Hi All,
Happy New Year again!  Bill has inspired me ? there are issues we should be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for the meeting.  Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would  benefit from advanced planning.  They are substantive and speaker agenda items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare their presentations).

Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel inspired)?  Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide will give us something to work from ? a rough draft.

I propose 1/11 as the deadline ? and then a day or two to comment as a group (and then send on to the speakers).  Again, rough draft for discussion purposes is the goal?. a starting point to our discussion in London!

Here?s the list of subjects.  Please let me and Emily know (on or off list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you!

I. Definitions ? a working set of definitions, background, scope (see initial ideas in Agenda):
1.                         A. Producers of Whois Data _____________ (Volunteer(s))
2.                         B. Law Enforcement _____________ (Volunteer(s))
3.                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________ (Volunteer(s))
4.                         D. Applicable laws _____________ (Volunteer(s))

II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations to our needs):
5.                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:  James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?)
6.                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy & History: _____________ (Volunteer(s))
7.                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker
8.                         D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still ?invited,? but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s))
9.                         E. Questions for Department of Commerce/Lawrence Strickling

III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings
Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don?t mind my volunteering you).

IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:
Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))


Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything?

Best and tx!

Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> |

Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG Blog<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

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

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

<ATT00001..txt>




From kim at vonarx.ca  Fri Jan  7 01:47:55 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:47:55 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
In-Reply-To: <7A0D9CF7-9D81-44F6-B856-0DEC5CED9655@paypal.com>
References: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DB34@tetra.PIR.com>
	<0F431758-989B-4D8E-B932-C4FA93C838CF@vonarx.ca>
	<55414935-C1FF-4022-AB30-D2D74F07CD8C@vonarx.ca>
	<7A0D9CF7-9D81-44F6-B856-0DEC5CED9655@paypal.com>
Message-ID: <1974667C-5725-440A-8874-368A2BA403C6@vonarx.ca>

Bill: 

I agree with you to some extent, however, I don't believe that Kathy meant a treaties on the various laws, but an overview and understanding of the principles enshrined in the various privacy initiatives.  I do believe that it is important for us to understand the principles that are given some procedural breath in various jurisdictions as, at least in principle for many countries, it is the enshrinement of the voice of the people which in turn, I certainly believe, is part and parcel of the notion of public interest. 

Kim 

__________________________________

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you. 






On 2011-01-06, at 6:20 PM, Smith, Bill wrote:

> One possible interpretation of "applicable law" is to consider the AOC a "contract" and that the term simply references the jurisdiction for dispute resolution. As such, it might be boilerplate holdover from a prior agreement and would serve to limit the laws in question.
> 
> Another interpretation is to look at the AOC as a promise, and that ICANN does not wish to be required to engage in illegal activity in order to fulfill its obligation. With this interpretation, there wouldn't be a jurisdictional limit and as a consequence, a larger set of laws would be involved.
> 
> In either case, attempting to list all such laws seems a futile task since the law rather lives and breathes based on precedent, appeal, reversal, and new legislation.
> 
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote:
> 
> I should add, I would also be happy to start the "applicable law", but I think that is a much larger task and requires as many people as possible so that we can divide up the continents (at least) in to different sections.
> 
> Kim
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2011-01-06, at 4:46 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote:
> 
> Hi Kathy et al:
> 
> I am not exactly sure what you are looking for, but I'd be happy to take on Law Enforcement and, as I understand the purpose of this, I will try to come up with some kind of very rough wireframe proposal which can guide and facilitate a discussion.  It would be great if Sharon would join me in that venture as, I believe, she would have the most relevant experience in that sector.
> 
> Kim
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2011-01-06, at 1:05 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> Happy New Year again!  Bill has inspired me ? there are issues we should be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for the meeting.  Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would  benefit from advanced planning.  They are substantive and speaker agenda items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare their presentations).
> 
> Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel inspired)?  Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide will give us something to work from ? a rough draft.
> 
> I propose 1/11 as the deadline ? and then a day or two to comment as a group (and then send on to the speakers).  Again, rough draft for discussion purposes is the goal?. a starting point to our discussion in London!
> 
> Here?s the list of subjects.  Please let me and Emily know (on or off list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you!
> 
> I. Definitions ? a working set of definitions, background, scope (see initial ideas in Agenda):
> 1.                         A. Producers of Whois Data _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 2.                         B. Law Enforcement _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 3.                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 4.                         D. Applicable laws _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 
> II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations to our needs):
> 5.                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:  James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?)
> 6.                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy & History: _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 7.                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker
> 8.                         D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still ?invited,? but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 9.                         E. Questions for Department of Commerce/Lawrence Strickling
> 
> III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings
> Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don?t mind my volunteering you).
> 
> IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:
> Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 
> 
> Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything?
> 
> Best and tx!
> 
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG, The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> |
> 
> Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG Blog<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |
> 
> Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> <ATT00001..txt>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110106/c60f9b0e/attachment.html 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Fri Jan  7 04:32:18 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:32:18 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Travel support and expense reimbursement
Message-ID: <20110106213218.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.65187a75e6.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110106/c07408d8/attachment.html 

From sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk  Fri Jan  7 08:31:45 2011
From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (Lemon, Sharon)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 08:31:45 -0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
Message-ID: <2211B7B9B95C3A4898AE8A6CBCD8B2B7026048C8@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>

Classification: [ NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ]

Be very happy to work with Kim on this~apologies for delay, in bed with flu. 
Please excuse brevity of message, sent from BB. Sharon

________________________________

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org 
To: Kathy Kleiman 
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org 
Sent: Thu Jan 06 21:46:37 2011
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer? 


Hi Kathy et al: 

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for, but I'd be happy to take on Law Enforcement and, as I understand the purpose of this, I will try to come up with some kind of very rough wireframe proposal which can guide and facilitate a discussion.  It would be great if Sharon would join me in that venture as, I believe, she would have the most relevant experience in that sector. 

Kim 



__________________________________

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you. 






On 2011-01-06, at 1:05 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:


	
	Hi All,
	Happy New Year again!  Bill has inspired me ? there are issues we should be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for the meeting.  Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would  benefit from advanced planning.  They are substantive and speaker agenda items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare their presentations).
	 
	Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel inspired)?  Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide will give us something to work from ? a rough draft.
	 
	I propose 1/11 as the deadline ? and then a day or two to comment as a group (and then send on to the speakers).  Again, rough draft for discussion purposes is the goal?. a starting point to our discussion in London!
	 
	Here?s the list of subjects.  Please let me and Emily know (on or off list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you!
	              
	I. Definitions ? a working set of definitions, background, scope (see initial ideas in Agenda):
	1.                         A. Producers of Whois Data _____________ (Volunteer(s))
	2.                         B. Law Enforcement _____________ (Volunteer(s))
	3.                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________ (Volunteer(s))
	4.                         D. Applicable laws _____________ (Volunteer(s))
	 
	II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations to our needs):
	5.                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:  James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?)
	6.                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy & History: _____________ (Volunteer(s))
	7.                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker
	8.                         D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still ?invited,? but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s))
	9.                         E. Questions for Department of Commerce/Lawrence Strickling
	 
	III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings
	Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don?t mind my volunteering you).
	 
	IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:
	Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))
	 
	 
	Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything?
	 
	Best and tx!
	 
	Kathy Kleiman
	Director of Policy
	.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
	Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org <http://www.pir.org>  | 
	 
	Find us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>   |  .ORG Blog <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>  | Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>  | YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>  | Twitter <http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz>  |
	 
	Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
	 
	_______________________________________________
	Rt4-whois mailing list
	Rt4-whois at icann.org
	https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
	



This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation?s IT Helpdesk. 
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.


All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.


This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677.

All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring.  E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.


The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110107/4c1a3c73/attachment.html 

From susank at fb.com  Fri Jan  7 04:02:38 2011
From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 04:02:38 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
In-Reply-To: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DBB0@tetra.PIR.com>
References: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DB34@tetra.PIR.com>
	<0F431758-989B-4D8E-B932-C4FA93C838CF@vonarx.ca>
	<DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DBB0@tetra.PIR.com>
Message-ID: <C628EE0F2F48264180E22431EC6D8E770DF0F5B0@sc-mbx06.TheFacebook.com>

Hi Kathy,

I can join James on the questions for ICANN staff on Compliance  and the  definition of Producers of WHOIS data.

Susan

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 1:53 PM
To: Kim G. von Arx
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?

Great Kim, you and Sharon would be great team to rough out an outline of law enforcement definitions, and what "serving legitimate law enforcement" interests might mean.  Tx you!

I think Sharon may be out of town, so her response may be coming in a bit... great tx to all Sharon has done in setting upour meeting!

More volunteers?  Lots of great issues yet to define!

Best,
Kathy

From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 4:47 PM
To: Kathy Kleiman
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
Importance: High

Hi Kathy et al:

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for, but I'd be happy to take on Law Enforcement and, as I understand the purpose of this, I will try to come up with some kind of very rough wireframe proposal which can guide and facilitate a discussion.  It would be great if Sharon would join me in that venture as, I believe, she would have the most relevant experience in that sector.

Kim



__________________________________

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you.





On 2011-01-06, at 1:05 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

Hi All,
Happy New Year again!  Bill has inspired me - there are issues we should be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for the meeting.  Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would  benefit from advanced planning.  They are substantive and speaker agenda items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare their presentations).

Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel inspired)?  Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide will give us something to work from - a rough draft.

I propose 1/11 as the deadline - and then a day or two to comment as a group (and then send on to the speakers).  Again, rough draft for discussion purposes is the goal.... a starting point to our discussion in London!

Here's the list of subjects.  Please let me and Emily know (on or off list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you!

I. Definitions - a working set of definitions, background, scope (see initial ideas in Agenda):
1.                         A. Producers of Whois Data _____________ (Volunteer(s))
2.                         B. Law Enforcement _____________ (Volunteer(s))
3.                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________ (Volunteer(s))
4.                         D. Applicable laws _____________ (Volunteer(s))

II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations to our needs):
5.                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:  James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?)
6.                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy & History: _____________ (Volunteer(s))
7.                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker
8.                         D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still "invited," but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s))
9.                         E. Questions for Department of Commerce/Lawrence Strickling

III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings
Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don't mind my volunteering you).

IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:
Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))


Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything?

Best and tx!

Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org> |

Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG Blog<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110107/d1db64ab/attachment.html 

From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at  Fri Jan  7 09:00:38 2011
From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet)
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:00:38 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance andconference
 call with Strickling and Beckstrom
In-Reply-To: <0F98804F-C3F2-41F8-8D8A-BB893E795346@etlaw.co.uk>
References: <AANLkTin5DC=mvKp0XMwachtt7Ktjt9Omxwh3E5jZXHmN@mail.gmail.com><8BEE8E9D-05EF-4F68-9460-A17DA8CE1918@etlaw.co.uk>	<39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B7DD1F7E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>	<DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DA6D@tetra.PIR.com>	<60C48371-EDAB-4DE6-BDC7-EB57AA80D4C4@paypal.com>
	<0F98804F-C3F2-41F8-8D8A-BB893E795346@etlaw.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4D26D636.6030602@CC.UniVie.ac.at>

I'd like to echo Bill, asking for a *very rough* draft or list of
*suggestions* regarding physical (or other) meetings.

It is much easier for me to tentatively block some more slots as early
as possible and to relase some of them later on, rather than having to
cancel or move other activities that have been agreed already.

Btw, the Address Council yesterday agreed to have our monthly phone
conferences on the 1st Thursday each month, starting at 16:00 UTC.

Due to collision with other major events, for May and November 2011
the calls will be held on the 2nd Thursday: May 12th and November 10th.

Wilfried.

Emily Taylor wrote:

> Hi Bill
> 
> Kathy and I will do our best to get some ideas out there to the group
> prior to the meeting.  As Kathy said, these could only be proposals
> until the group has the chance to discuss (unless we manage to all agree
> it on the list), but it will certainly get the ball rolling.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Emily
> 
> On 5 Jan 2011, at 22:12, Smith, Bill wrote:
> 
>> Kathy,
>>
>> I suggest that we can test for agreement via email, phone, or
>> in-person. If a proposal won't be available until London, there's no
>> need to consider sending earlier.
>>
>> My point is that getting *something* out sooner, rather than later is
>> desirable so that we may begin to consider this as a group.
>>
>> Re a conference call proposal, I believe one was made some time ago to
>> schedule calls on a set day/time at least every fortnight (with the
>> option to hold additional calls on the "off" weeks). We had found a
>> day/time that seemed to work for all or most people and I hope we can
>> continue with that "plan".
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>
>> Bill,
>> We can certainly try, but the purpose of sharing a draft at the London
>> meeting was to see whether people agreed with the ideas we share for
>> F2F and conference call meetings.  We can circulate something, but I
>> don?t think we will finalize until then.
>>
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>>
>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 4:20 PM
>> To: Emily Taylor; denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
>> Cc: RT4 WHOIS
>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance
>> andconference call with Strickling and Beckstrom
>>
>> Emily,
>>
>> I see in the draft agenda that you and Kathy plan to present a
>> proposal for meetings. Would it be possible to send that out in
>> advance of the meeting, perhaps this week? My calendar is filling up
>> and I continue to make other commitments as requests  come in.
>>
>> At present, I have nothing blocked out for the WHOIS Review except
>> ICANN meeting weeks. If we plan on meeting at other times, it would be
>> good to know that as soon as possible.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:18 AM
>> To: denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
>> Cc: RT4 WHOIS
>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance and
>> conference call with Strickling and Beckstrom
>>
>> Dear Denise, Dear All
>>
>> Denise, I am delighted to here that you and other members of the ICANN
>> team will be in attendance at the London meeting, and appreciate your
>> continued support of the Team's work.
>>
>> All, I attach an updated draft of the London agenda for your
>> information.  It is more or less the same as that circulated before
>> Christmas, but makes a number of changes in response to comments:
>>
>> - Later finish time on second day
>> - Inclusion of "producers" under item 3 (Developing the Definitions)
>> - Discussion with Larry Strickling is inserted as new item 4
>> (afternoon of first day).  This item is referred to in Denise's mail,
>> and is carried over from the Cartagena meeting.  Denise, if Rod is
>> available to join this discussion, he would be most welcome.  If not,
>> we can schedule for another occasion.
>>
>> Your other question, Denise, is I hope answered by the agenda on day 2
>> (item 6(a)).  If anything is unclear, Kathy or I will be happy to give
>> you a briefing.
>>
>> I look forward to receiving any final comments by the end of Friday.
>>  In the absence of any comments, we will take this agenda as agreed
>> prior to the meeting.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Emily
>>
> 
> Emily Taylor Consultant (Internet Law and Governance)
> 
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> telephone: * 01865 582 811*   mobile: * 07540 049 322*
> emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk <mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>
> www.etlaw.co.uk <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois



From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at  Fri Jan  7 08:44:31 2011
From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet)
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 08:44:31 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
In-Reply-To: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DB34@tetra.PIR.com>
References: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536DB34@tetra.PIR.com>
Message-ID: <4D26D26F.3040808@CC.UniVie.ac.at>

Dear Kathy, Team,

I guess I should raise my hand for I.A. immediately.

I may also be able to come up with ideas and questions regarding
the definition or categorisation of Law Enforcement, I.B.

Also, II.B. seems appropriate.

Apologies for the late reply, Xmess caused some delay on my end ;-)

All the best for 2011
(or whatever your number currently is or soon will be :-) )
Wilfried.

Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> Happy New Year again!  Bill has inspired me ? there are issues we should
> be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for
> the meeting.  Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would 
> benefit from advanced planning.  They are substantive and speaker agenda
> items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare
> their presentations).
> 
>  
> 
> Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel
> inspired)?  Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem
> appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy
> needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide
> will give us something to work from ? a rough draft.
> 
>  
> 
> *I propose 1/11 as the deadline ? and then a day or two to comment as a
> group (and then send on to the speakers).  Again, rough draft for
> discussion purposes is the goal?. a starting point to our discussion in
> London!***
> 
>  
> 
> */Here?s the list of subjects.  Please let me and Emily know (on or off
> list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you!/*
> 
>               
> 
> I. Definitions ? a working set of definitions, background, scope (see
> initial ideas in Agenda):
> 
> 1.                         A. Producers of Whois Data _____________
> (Volunteer(s))
> 
> 2.                         B. Law Enforcement _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 
> 3.                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________
> (Volunteer(s))
> 
> 4.                         D. Applicable laws _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 
>  
> 
> II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations
> to our needs):
> 
> 5.                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance: 
> James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?)
> 
> 6.                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy
> & History: _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 
> 7.                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker
> 
> 8.                         D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still
> ?invited,? but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 
> 9.                         E. Questions for Department of
> Commerce/Lawrence Strickling
> 
>  
> 
> III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings
> 
> Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don?t mind my
> volunteering you).
> 
>  
> 
> IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:
> 
> Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything?
> 
>  
> 
> Best and tx!
> 
>  
> 
> *Kathy Kleiman*
> 
> Director of Policy
> 
> .ORG, The Public Interest Registry
> 
> Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org
> <http://www.pir.org> | 
> 
>  
> 
> Find us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG Blog
> <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>
> | YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |
> 
>  
> 
> *Confidentiality Note:*  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The
> Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender
> and then delete.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois



From olof.nordling at icann.org  Fri Jan  7 09:47:57 2011
From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 01:47:57 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Travel support and expense reimbursement
In-Reply-To: <20110106213218.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.65187a75e6.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20110106213218.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.65187a75e6.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D358EB2FFE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Bill, James and all,
For those preferring to submit expense reports and reimbursement details by anything else than email,
here is the POSTAL ADDRESS:

ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601
USA

and the FAX:

+1 310 823 8649

Just please send all documents together to facilitate matters (not easy to match documents from different streams). Put either ?Accounts Payable? or ?Constituency Travel? as attention.
Very best regards
Olof

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 5:32 AM
To: Smith,Bill
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org; Olof Nordling
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Travel support and expense reimbursement

Agree with Bill. Perhaps an secure web form or (old-school) fax option might be more appropriate.

Also, for those of us making our own flights, do we have details on the hotel reservation?  At this point, I'm not even clear where to tell the taxi driver to go....

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Travel support and expense reimbursement
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>>
Date: Thu, January 06, 2011 9:28 am
To: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling at icann.org<mailto:olof.nordling at icann.org>>
Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>

I would (strongly) suggest that we use an "out of band" channel to send bank account details. Email is notoriously insecure.

On Jan 6, 2011, at 3:19 AM, Olof Nordling wrote:

Dear all,

With our London meeting coming up, I am sure you will find the attached expense reimbursement form of interest, as well as some practical hints about how to use it:
After the meeting, please list your expenses on this form (lodging, meals, travel ? unless already covered), attach scanned copies of the receipts and mail to accountspayable at icann.org<mailto:accountspayable at icann.org><mailto:accountspayable at icann.org> (please also copy Alice and me) while clearly stating in the mail your bank account details for the transfer. Please note on the form that you can change the ?disbursement currency? to the currency of your choice ? and also that there is a link on the form to a currency conversion website to make life a little easier.

Happy to answer any questions you may have on this, of course.

For more about ICANN?s travel support rules, please see the latest version at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guidelines-fy11-v2-01nov10-en.pdf .

Very best regards - wishing you safe travels and a really good 2011!

Olof


<Reimbursement Form.xls><ATT00001..txt>


_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110107/ed991657/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Fri Jan  7 11:55:10 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 03:55:10 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting - Hotel
Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D3588A584D@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please note that your booking details are available on the WHOIS private wiki. 

Please review the information and forward your questions or requirements to my address alice.jansen at icann.org by Wednesday, 12 January at the very latest.

Be kindly reminded that rt4 email archives are published and that email exchanges regarding your personal travel information (as a consequence) should be kept off list.

Many thanks in advance for your understanding.

May I also take this opportunity to wish you all a happy and healthy new year.

Very best regards

Alice

Alice Jansen
---------------------
ICANN
Assistant, Organizational Review
alice.jansen at icann.org
Phone: +32.2.234.78.64
---------------------
6, Rond Point Schuman
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium


From kKleiman at pir.org  Fri Jan  7 14:06:54 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:06:54 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer?
In-Reply-To: <2211B7B9B95C3A4898AE8A6CBCD8B2B7026048C8@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>
References: <2211B7B9B95C3A4898AE8A6CBCD8B2B7026048C8@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>
Message-ID: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA69053F9D51@tetra.PIR.com>

Hi Sharon, 

So sorry to hear you are sick. Please feel better ? and recover quickly!  

Best,

Kathy

 

From: Lemon, Sharon [mailto:sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk] 
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 3:32 AM
To: kim at vonarx.ca; Kathy Kleiman
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer? 

 

Classification: [ NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ]

Be very happy to work with Kim on this~apologies for delay, in bed with flu. 
Please excuse brevity of message, sent from BB. Sharon

________________________________

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org 
To: Kathy Kleiman 
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org 
Sent: Thu Jan 06 21:46:37 2011
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Can everyone volunteer? 

Hi Kathy et al: 

 

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for, but I'd be happy to take on Law Enforcement and, as I understand the purpose of this, I will try to come up with some kind of very rough wireframe proposal which can guide and facilitate a discussion.  It would be great if Sharon would join me in that venture as, I believe, she would have the most relevant experience in that sector. 

 

Kim 

 

 


__________________________________

 

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year or Season's Greetings... whatever works for you. 

 

 

 





 

On 2011-01-06, at 1:05 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:





Hi All,

Happy New Year again!  Bill has inspired me ? there are issues we should be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for the meeting.  Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would  benefit from advanced planning.  They are substantive and speaker agenda items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare their presentations).

 

Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel inspired)?  Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide will give us something to work from ? a rough draft.

 

I propose 1/11 as the deadline ? and then a day or two to comment as a group (and then send on to the speakers).  Again, rough draft for discussion purposes is the goal?. a starting point to our discussion in London!

 

Here?s the list of subjects.  Please let me and Emily know (on or off list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you!

              

I. Definitions ? a working set of definitions, background, scope (see initial ideas in Agenda):

1.                         A. Producers of Whois Data _____________ (Volunteer(s))

2.                         B. Law Enforcement _____________ (Volunteer(s))

3.                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________ (Volunteer(s))

4.                         D. Applicable laws _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations to our needs):

5.                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:  James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?)

6.                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy & History: _____________ (Volunteer(s))

7.                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker

8.                         D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still ?invited,? but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s))

9.                         E. Questions for Department of Commerce/Lawrence Strickling

 

III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings

Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don?t mind my volunteering you).

 

IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:

Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

 

Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything?

 

Best and tx!

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org <http://www.pir.org>  | 

 

Find us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>   |  .ORG Blog <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>  | Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>  | YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>  | Twitter <http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz>  |

 

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

 


This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation?s IT Helpdesk. 
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.

This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677.

 

All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.

 


The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110107/5251f104/attachment.html 

From kKleiman at pir.org  Fri Jan  7 15:22:21 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 10:22:21 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Volunteers still needed!
Message-ID: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA69053F9D66@tetra.PIR.com>

Hi All,

Great thanks to all who has signed up for one (and two topics!).  But
don't worry if you have not signed up yet, there are plenty of open
slots.  We still need your ideas, input and guidance! 

 

Please let us know your choices  - and please let me know if I have
missed any email and areas you selected. 

Best and many thanks,

Kathy and Emily

 

 

Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem
appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy
needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide
will give us something to work from - a rough draft.

 

Here's the list of subjects, and current volunteers.  If everyone could
take at least one topic we will be well prepared for this meeting!

              

I. Definitions - a working set of definitions, background, scope (see
initial ideas in Agenda):

              A. Producers of Whois Data:  James, Susan, Wilfried
(Volunteer(s))

                         B. Law Enforcement:  Kim and Sharon
(Volunteer(s))

                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________
(Volunteer(s))

                         D. Applicable laws:  Kim (Volunteer(s))

 

II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations
to our needs):

                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:
James and Susan (additional volunteer?)

                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy &
History: Wilfried (Volunteer(s))

                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker: _____________
(Volunteer(s))

                    D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still
"invited," but not yet RSVPed) ___________ (Volunteer(s))

                         E. Questions for Department of
Commerce/Lawrence Strickling: _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings

Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don't mind my
volunteering you).

 

IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:

Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org
<http://www.pir.org>  |  

 

Find us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>   |  .ORG Blog
<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>  | Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>  |
YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>  | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz>  |

 

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public
Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then
delete.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110107/2358f533/attachment.html 

From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at  Fri Jan  7 17:28:49 2011
From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet)
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:28:49 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Brainstorming notes
In-Reply-To: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536CDB1@tetra.PIR.com>
References: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA690536CDB1@tetra.PIR.com>
Message-ID: <4D274D51.6030601@CC.UniVie.ac.at>

Dear Team,

Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> I wanted to circulate the ?brainstorming notes? from our informal
> session in Cartagena. 
[...]

please note, that I added the string "(Draft)" to the header of the
Agenda Document for Cartagena and I also added a note regarding item 2
(Beckstr?m and Strickling) being postponed for London -

just to properly reflect reality on the publicly accessible Wiki pages.

Regards,
Wilfried.


From sarmad at cantab.net  Sat Jan  8 07:52:09 2011
From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr. Sarmad Hussain)
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 12:52:09 +0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Volunteers still needed!
In-Reply-To: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA69053F9D66@tetra.PIR.com>
References: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA69053F9D66@tetra.PIR.com>
Message-ID: <003b01cbaf08$f7281730$e5784590$@net>

Please put me in for I.C.: Consumers and Consumer Trust

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 8:22 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Volunteers still needed!
Importance: High

 

Hi All,

Great thanks to all who has signed up for one (and two topics!).  But don't
worry if you have not signed up yet, there are plenty of open slots.  We
still need your ideas, input and guidance! 

 

Please let us know your choices  - and please let me know if I have missed
any email and areas you selected. 

Best and many thanks,

Kathy and Emily

 

 

Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem appropriate,
and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy needed:
paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide will give us
something to work from - a rough draft.

 

Here's the list of subjects, and current volunteers.  If everyone could take
at least one topic we will be well prepared for this meeting!

              

I. Definitions - a working set of definitions, background, scope (see
initial ideas in Agenda):

              A. Producers of Whois Data:  James, Susan, Wilfried
(Volunteer(s))

                         B. Law Enforcement:  Kim and Sharon (Volunteer(s))

                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________
(Volunteer(s))

                         D. Applicable laws:  Kim (Volunteer(s))

 

II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations to
our needs):

                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:  James
and Susan (additional volunteer?)

                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy &
History: Wilfried (Volunteer(s))

                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker: _____________
(Volunteer(s))

                    D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still "invited,"
but not yet RSVPed) ___________ (Volunteer(s))

                         E. Questions for Department of Commerce/Lawrence
Strickling: _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings

Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don't mind my volunteering
you).

 

IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:

Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|   <http://www.pir.org>
www.pir.org |  

 

Find us on  <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org> Facebook  |
<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> .ORG Blog |  <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> Flickr
|  <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> YouTube |  <http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz>
Twitter |

 

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public
Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then
delete.

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3365 - Release Date: 01/07/11
12:34:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110108/3cdef078/attachment.html 

From kKleiman at pir.org  Sat Jan  8 15:04:37 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 10:04:37 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Volunteers still needed!
References: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA69053F9D66@tetra.PIR.com>
	<003b01cbaf08$f7281730$e5784590$@net>
Message-ID: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA69046F0B40@tetra.PIR.com>

Excellent, and will do.  Tx you, Sarmad!
Best,
Kathy

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr.Sarmad Hussain on behalf of Dr. Sarmad Hussain
Sent: Sat 1/8/2011 2:52 AM
To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Volunteers still needed!
 
Please put me in for I.C.: Consumers and Consumer Trust

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 8:22 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Volunteers still needed!
Importance: High

 

Hi All,

Great thanks to all who has signed up for one (and two topics!).  But don't
worry if you have not signed up yet, there are plenty of open slots.  We
still need your ideas, input and guidance! 

 

Please let us know your choices  - and please let me know if I have missed
any email and areas you selected. 

Best and many thanks,

Kathy and Emily

 

 

Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem appropriate,
and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy needed:
paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide will give us
something to work from - a rough draft.

 

Here's the list of subjects, and current volunteers.  If everyone could take
at least one topic we will be well prepared for this meeting!

              

I. Definitions - a working set of definitions, background, scope (see
initial ideas in Agenda):

              A. Producers of Whois Data:  James, Susan, Wilfried
(Volunteer(s))

                         B. Law Enforcement:  Kim and Sharon (Volunteer(s))

                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________
(Volunteer(s))

                         D. Applicable laws:  Kim (Volunteer(s))

 

II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations to
our needs):

                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:  James
and Susan (additional volunteer?)

                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy &
History: Wilfried (Volunteer(s))

                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker: _____________
(Volunteer(s))

                    D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still "invited,"
but not yet RSVPed) ___________ (Volunteer(s))

                         E. Questions for Department of Commerce/Lawrence
Strickling: _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings

Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don't mind my volunteering
you).

 

IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:

Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|   <http://www.pir.org>
www.pir.org |  

 

Find us on  <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org> Facebook  |
<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> .ORG Blog |  <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> Flickr
|  <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> YouTube |  <http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz>
Twitter |

 

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public
Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then
delete.

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3365 - Release Date: 01/07/11
12:34:00





From kKleiman at pir.org  Sun Jan  9 15:38:51 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:38:51 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Volunteers still welcome!
Message-ID: <DE144BA8CAB2C8418F485515B9AEFA69053F9E84@tetra.PIR.com>

Hi All,

Tx you so much for volunteering. The materials below show the current
status of the list (did I miss anyone?). The slots are filling up!

 

If you have not volunteered, your input is, of course, most welcome (and
feel free to double up with another person).

Best, Kathy

 

 

Review Team Preparation for London Meeting

Deadline 1/11 (or latest 1/12)

 

Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem
appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list.  Nothing fancy
needed:  paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas.  Whatever you provide
will give us something to work from - a rough draft.

 

Here's the list of subjects, and current volunteers.  If everyone could
take at least one topic we will be well prepared for this meeting!

              

I. Definitions - a working set of definitions, background, scope (see
initial ideas in Agenda):

              A. Producers of Whois Data:  James, Susan, Wilfried
(Volunteer(s))

                         B. Law Enforcement:  Kim and Sharon
(Volunteer(s))

                         C. Consumers and Consumer Trust Sarmad
(Volunteer(s))

                         D. Applicable laws:  Kim and Omar
(Volunteer(s))

 

II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations
to our needs):

                         A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance:
James and Susan (additional volunteer?)

                         B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy &
History: Wilfried (Volunteer(s))

                         C. Questions for SOCA Speaker: Lynn
(Volunteer(s))

                      D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still
"invited," but not yet RSVPed) ___________ (Volunteer(s))

                         E. Questions for Department of
Commerce/Lawrence Strickling: _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings

Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don't mind my
volunteering you).

 

IV. Outreach & Action  Plan:

Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s))

 

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org
<http://www.pir.org>  |  

 

Find us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>   |  .ORG Blog
<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>  | Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>  |
YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>  | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz>  |

 

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public
Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then
delete.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110109/f737abf1/attachment.html