From jbladel at godaddy.com Mon Feb 21 01:55:02 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:55:02 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Suggested questionnaire for "promotes consumer trust" Message-ID: <20110220185502.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.1300d69c80.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110220/a5d75ac0/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Mon Feb 21 02:00:12 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:00:12 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Suggested defintion for "promotes consumer trust" Message-ID: <20110220190012.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.4695148d12.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110220/80884815/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Mon Feb 21 14:39:45 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:39:45 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Suggested defintion for "promotes consumer trust" In-Reply-To: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B752760587095684@pir-mail-01> References: <20110219204407.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.dfd5bfd1c1.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B752760587095684@pir-mail-01> Message-ID: <1714B2C1-2C45-463E-8F0E-6E034F6CE64D@paypal.com> When we move to defining the term "consumer trust", will we be limited to the defined term "Consumer"? If so, I feel we are missing the forest for the trees. There are considerably more "consumers" on the Internet than just those that provide/maintain/utilize WHOIS data and it is the larger group whose trust we should be most concerned about. On Feb 20, 2011, at 6:15 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi All, Tx for bearing with me on our call on Wednesday. I think we are coming close, but something still seems too broad. So let me try again ? with great thanks to the work of the Consumer Trust Subteam: Current Working Definition of Consumer by Consumer Trust Subteam: Individuals/organizations who are providing/maintaining/utilizing WHOIS data for commercial/non-commercial purposes. 1. I don?t think the gTLD organizations/companies (registrars, registries) who maintain the Whois data are consumers ? their use is business-to-business and governed by ICANN contract, so I would recommend we take them out of the definition. 2. At that point ?providing the data? has a little ambiguity as there will be the registrants who provide the data, and the companies that make it public. 3. I think the differentiation that James has set out below resolves the ambiguities I see. If everyone agrees, would it be possible to set these out as two definitions of consumer out separately? Best and tx, Kathy From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 10:44 PM To: Emily Taylor Cc: RT4 WHOIS Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Suggested questionnaire for "promotes consumer trust" Emily et al: Perhaps it's just me, but I'm concerned that we are blurring some definitions (or I am over-thinking them). When I think "Consumer" in the context of WHOIS, two categories come to mind: * The person or organization that has created a record, and submitted their contact details to WHOIS. In other efforts we have termed them PRODUCERS of WHOIS data; and, * The person or organization that is querying the WHOIS system in search of further information about a domain name. To my knowledge, we are calling these folks "Consumers" when they are probably only part of that category. Recommend we call them END-USERS. The term "Consumer Trust" means, to me, that both PRODUCERS are confident that their personal data is being managed properly, -and- that the END-USERS are confident that the WHOIS system is returning accurate results. Not really requesting any actions or changes to the language, but wanted to propose a discussion about these two distinct types of "Consumers." If this subject has already been beaten to death in another forum, please forgive my oversight. THanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rt4-whois] Suggested questionnaire for "promotes consumer trust" From: Emily Taylor > Date: Sat, February 19, 2011 6:46 am To: "Dr.Sarmad Hussain" >, Olivier ITEANU >, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, Peter Nettlefold ;, Bill Smith ; Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS" > Dear all Following my previous message, I attach my suggestions on how to convert the content of section 2 of the Subteam's paper into a questionnaire. You'll see that I have put plenty of comments to ask for your views and/or clarification. I hope this is helpful in assisting us to meet our deadline of Wednesday 24 February for our call for public comment. Best wishes 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 ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Feb 22 09:39:54 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:39:54 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Full SV meeting schedule now online Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, This is to inform you that the full Silicon Valley meeting schedule is now available online: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22237 Thanks, Best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110222/4bed0920/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Feb 23 10:19:20 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 02:19:20 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Article Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, An article entitled 'Whois Privacy' to Protect Personal Details on Easyspace .CO Domain Names has been posted on your wiki in the WHOIS Background Material section following Kathy's suggestion. You may find it at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Article+-+%27WHOIS+Privacy%27+to+Protect+Personal+Details+on+Easyspace+.CO+Domain+Names Thanks, Best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110223/a50197d2/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Feb 23 14:23:07 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:23:07 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 16 Feb - for your consideration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the preliminary report of your last conference call for your consideration. Kindly note that Kathy has reviewed this document. Thanks, Very best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110223/494196f4/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS REVIEW TEAM Prel Rep - 16 Feb.doc Type: application/x-msword Size: 41984 bytes Desc: WHOIS REVIEW TEAM Prel Rep - 16 Feb.doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110223/494196f4/WHOISREVIEWTEAMPrelRep-16Feb.doc From kim at vonarx.ca Wed Feb 23 15:49:31 2011 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:49:31 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 16 Feb - for your consideration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All: My apologies for the long silence from my end. I did follow the email threads and I just saw (and saw in an email a week or so ago) a comment that Bill had some comments about applicable laws, but I have not seen any emails/comments from Bill on the list wrt to "applicable laws thus far. I may have missed it. The only discussion I saw so far was on "consumer trust". Further, I looked at the questionnaire and I am quite confused with the questions, e.g.., "government executive agency (like police)" What does that mean? If we are talking about the executive branch of a government then "regulatory authority, secrete service, military intelligence services" would also be included in the "executive". Also, I do not understand what this question means: "Which kind of law would you consider as law enforcement access to WHOIS data" Is that supposed to mean "What laws should be the basis for WHOIS access?" If so, we need to reword it quite a bit to make it clear to native and non-native speakers. However, I am not sure what that question is trying to achieve in the first place. Further some important laws are missing from that list such as intellectual property laws (there are very important distinctions among real, personal, corporeal, incorporeal... property), regulatory laws, admiralty, etc The same goes for the question following the above noted one: "Which kind of government would you allow law enforcement access to WHOIS data" Then the questions wrt to the definition itself: 1. What does "enforcement only" mean? What examples does that relate to in the previous questions? 2. What does "direct government bodies" mean? What examples does that relate to in the previous questions? 3. What does it mean to be "subject to judicial an open civil overview"? What examples does that relate to in the previous questions? Finally, three more comments about the questionnaire in general: 1. We have to make sure that non-native speakers can understand it (unless, of course, it will get translated in to x-number of languages) 2. We have to make sure that we use less colloquialism to ensure that credibility is maintained. 3. We have to make sure that the questionnaire meets the general "usability" test/standard at the moment it is somewhat confusing. Anyway, thanks for the hard work on all of this so far I really appreciate it. Kim __________________________________ kim at vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." On 23 Feb 2011, at 09:23, Alice Jansen wrote: > Dear Review Team Members, > > Please find attached the preliminary report of your last conference call for your consideration. > > Kindly note that Kathy has reviewed this document. > > Thanks, > > Very best regards > > Alice > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110223/c4e49b41/attachment.html From kKleiman at pir.org Wed Feb 23 17:41:34 2011 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:41:34 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B752760587095A07@pir-mail-01> Hi All, An objection has been raised to this article, as a press release written by a company for the purpose of the company, and not appropriate for our Wiki. I think the objection is very fair, and ask Alice to please remove the article below from the Wiki. Here's the press release link, should you be interested. I shared it for its insight into a new ccTLD practice I found interesting, but certainly not authoritative or definitive: http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/11/02/m876228/whois-privacy-to-protect-personal-details-on-easyspace-co-domain-names Tx to Alice and best to All, Kathy From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:19 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Article Dear Review Team Members, An article entitled 'Whois Privacy' to Protect Personal Details on Easyspace .CO Domain Names has been posted on your wiki in the WHOIS Background Material section following Kathy's suggestion. You may find it at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Article+-+%27WHOIS+Privacy%27+to+Protect+Personal+Details+on+Easyspace+.CO+Domain+Names Thanks, Best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110223/0f5afdbf/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Feb 23 17:51:59 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:51:59 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 16 Feb - for your consideration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Kim, Below is (probably) the discussion about Bill you've mentioned. Regards, Omar 2011/2/16 Smith, Bill : > Comments inline: > > On Feb 16, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: > >> * Smith, Bill wrote: >>> First, I believe the definitions as presented reasonably capture >>> the sentiment of most, if not all, members of the Review Team >>> (including me). >> >> Thank you for this approval. >> >>> My concern is not with the definitions per se, but rather how they >>> might be used in other contexts. >> >> Current policies does not set up special rules for law enforcement as far as >> I can see. >> >>> For example, are the "legitimate >>> needs of law enforcement" constrained by Applicable Laws? >> >> Of course. That is the instrinctive nature of governmental executive bodies: >> They are bound to the law. Private cooperations are also bound to the local >> applicable law. > > Are you making a distinction between "Applicable Law", a defined term, and applicable law, an undefined term? If so, then we may be in agreement. Members of society, including corporate entities and law enforcement, are subject to applicable laws, any and all that apply. "Applicable law", undefined, is open to interpretation and subject to change. "Applicable Law", defined term, may have a more limited interpretation and may not be subject to change depending on how we choose to define it. > >> >> But I misread your question. The term "applicable law" in our context deals >> with the laws for the normal business processes in domain registration and >> maintainence: The generation and maintainence of whois data. Your question >> is about access to whois data. That's a different issue. > > If I understand your comment, we will have one definition of applicable laws for production, collection, processing, maintenance, etc., and another for use? If that's the case, what is that definition or are we leaving that open to interpretation as suggested above. > > Such a definition would need to support the policy as it currently stands which is for unrestricted, public access. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Smith, Bill Date: 2011/2/16 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Law Enforcement & Applicable Laws To: "rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS" First, I believe the definitions as presented reasonably capture the sentiment of most, if not all, members of the Review Team (including me). My concern is not with the definitions per se, but rather how they might be used in other contexts. For example, are the "legitimate needs of law enforcement" constrained by Applicable Laws? Are ICANN's compliance efforts similarly constrained? 2011/2/23 Kim G. von Arx : > Hi All: > My apologies for the long silence from my end. ?I did follow the email > threads and I just saw (and saw in an email a week or so ago) a comment > that?Bill had some comments about applicable laws, but I have not seen any > emails/comments from Bill on the list wrt to "applicable laws thus far. ?I > may have missed it. ?The only discussion I saw so far was on "consumer > trust". > Further, I looked at the questionnaire and I am quite confused with the > questions, e.g.., "government executive agency (like police)" ?What does > that mean? If we are talking about the executive branch of a government then > "regulatory authority, secrete service, military intelligence services" > would also be included in the "executive". > Also, I do not understand what this question means: ?"Which kind of law > would you consider as law enforcement access to WHOIS data" ?Is that > supposed to mean "What laws should be the basis for WHOIS access?" ?If so, > we need to reword it quite a bit to make it clear to native and non-native > speakers. ?However, I am not sure what that question is trying to achieve in > the first place. ?Further some important laws are missing from that list > such as intellectual property laws (there are very important distinctions > among real, personal, corporeal, incorporeal... property), regulatory laws, > admiralty, etc > The same goes for the question following the above noted one: "Which kind of > government would you allow law enforcement access to WHOIS data" > Then the questions wrt to the definition itself: > 1. What does "enforcement only" mean??What examples does that relate to in > the previous questions? > 2. What does "direct government bodies" mean? ?What examples does that > relate to in the previous questions? > 3. What does it mean to be "subject to judicial an open civil overview"? > ?What examples does that relate to in the previous questions? > Finally, three more comments about the questionnaire in general: > 1. We have to make sure that non-native speakers can understand it (unless, > of course, it will get translated in to x-number of languages) > 2. We have to make sure that we use less colloquialism to ensure that > credibility is maintained. > 3. We have to make sure that the questionnaire meets the general "usability" > test/standard at the moment it is somewhat confusing. > Anyway, thanks for the hard work on all of this so far I really appreciate > it. > Kim > > > __________________________________ > kim at vonarx.ca > +1 (613) 286-4445 > "Shoot for the moon. ?Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." > > > > > > > On 23 Feb 2011, at 09:23, Alice Jansen wrote: > > Dear Review Team Members, > Please find attached the preliminary report of your last conference call for > your consideration. > Kindly note that Kathy has reviewed this document. > Thanks, > Very best regards > Alice > > Feb.doc>_______________________________________________ > 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 > > From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Feb 23 18:00:10 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:00:10 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 16 Feb - for your consideration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: About Kim comments, more comments inline. The first part is very well covered by his observations, nothing to add. 2011/2/23 Kim G. von Arx : > > Finally, three more comments about the questionnaire in general: > 1. We have to make sure that non-native speakers can understand it (unless, > of course, it will get translated in to x-number of languages) And be aware of the "lost in translation" effect, i.e. according to FSF.org on GPL translations, "if an error did slip through, the results could be disastrous for the whole". > 2. We have to make sure that we use less colloquialism to ensure that > credibility is maintained. Perfect, and this complains with #1. Omar From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Fri Feb 25 02:20:24 2011 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:20:24 +1100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next week -availability and public comment materials [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302600BD31@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello all, I can see that the team has been very busy these past couple of weeks, and that some very useful discussions have emerged. I apologise for my absence, but I'm now busy trying to get back up to speed with where everything is at. Consumer trust has obviously been an area of fruitful discussion, and I think I have been able to largely track that debate through and have the latest working definitions and proposed questions. However, I'm having more trouble with the law enforcement and applicable laws discussions. For example, are the definitions of these on the public wiki page taken to be our final working definitions? Also, have proposed questions for these areas been developed? I apologise if I've missed them, but the number of emails, transcripts and wiki entries has made this a bit hard to track this - perhaps as I'm not on those sub-teams. Could someone, perhaps from one of those sub-teams, please forward these through to me if they're in a form to do so? As I said in London, and I see that others have commented on this more recently, I think a key issue here will be to ensure that we don't let something slip through the net (so to speak) of these three broad constructs. So from my perspective, I'd like to be able to look at all three together if possible. The one thing I would flag in advance is some reservation about the law enforcement definition on the wiki page. I haven't yet had time to work through this fully, but I hope that there could be opportunity to discuss this if necessary. I apologise in advance if I've missed something obvious. Thanks in advance, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Saturday, 19 February 2011 9:45 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next week -availability and public comment materials Dear all Just to let you know, I will be off line from Monday afternoon UTC for the rest of the week on holiday and business, and will not have access to e-mails. I wanted to contribute to the cause of getting our materials out to public comment next week. As I see it, our situation is: Scope and roadmap - agreed Action plan and outreach plan - agreed Definitions and questions: Law enforcement - agreed Producers and maintainers - agreed (I think) Applicable laws - nearly there. We are waiting on additional questions to highlight concerns raised on the call by Bill. Bill is going to put his thoughts to the sub-Team, who will do the drafting. Consumers and consumer trust - This needs the most work, in my view. We have a definition of "consumer" which can go out. Again, Kathy raised some concerns on the call - and we agreed that Kathy will put her concerns in writing, and the sub-team will formulate some questions for public comment on that basis. We also need to think about how to capture the ideas on consumer trust. I have a suggestion, which I'd be glad to work on this weekend. That is, we develop a qualitative-type question set based on section two of the paper. The aim would be to capture views on what is important in promoting consumer trust. The other area that we have not addressed is the introduction to the public comment. Kathy and I would be glad to pull something together on this. I will let Kathy have a first draft this weekend. Let me know if I missed anything. Best, Emily [cid:image002.jpg at 01CBD4EE.BDCDD7C0] 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110225/7f3d2ada/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 507 bytes Desc: image002.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110225/7f3d2ada/image002.jpg