From alice.jansen at icann.org  Mon Feb 28 08:41:59 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:41:59 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -
In-Reply-To: <C9757FBF.3867%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <C9911A74.4717%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

As you know, the time of your last conference call changed as Peter was unable to join.
Pursuant to our rotation system and in line with resolutions adopted during your last call, the next session will be scheduled within working hours of Peter's timezone.
Since 4:00 UTC was the time initially allotted to the 16 Feb session, our proposal is to adopt this slot for the next call - scheduled for Wednesday, 2 March.
This is put forward for your consideration ? please feel free to share your views. Should no objection be raised by today, end of your business day, we will proceed with this proposal.

Many thanks in advance,

Very best regards

Alice
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 01:48:06 -0800
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Cc: "Kathage, Tristan" <Tristan.Kathage at dbcde.gov.au<mailto:Tristan.Kathage at dbcde.gov.au>>
Subject: Next conference call - PROPOSAL

Dear Review Team Members,

According to our conference call calendar, the next WHOIS RT session is scheduled for 16 February at 4:00 UTC - https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/TeleConferences.

Please note that this time was initially added to the calendar to accommodate Australia in line with our rotation system. As Peter is out of office for the next two weeks, the RT Chair suggested that we should opt for a time that is more convenient for the RT.

Since 14:00 UTC used to be the preferred time last autumn for your calls (in line with Doodle poll results),  we are putting forward this alternative for your consideration.

Please advise whether this is acceptable.

Rest assured that we will circulate a doodle poll should concerns or drawbacks be raised in reaction to this proposal.

Thank you,

Very best regards

Alice


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110228/032b0077/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Mon Feb 28 17:43:21 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:43:21 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -
In-Reply-To: <C9911A74.4717%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <C9911A74.4717%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <0BDDD8B6-6E48-452D-BAE1-B4C5691FB7C8@etlaw.co.uk>

Dear all
Please can we move the call to 0500 UTC so that I can join to chair it?  
Emily

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Feb 2011, at 08:41, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Review Team Members,
> 
> As you know, the time of your last conference call changed as Peter was unable to join.
> Pursuant to our rotation system and in line with resolutions adopted during your last call, the next session will be scheduled within working hours of Peter's timezone. 
> Since 4:00 UTC was the time initially allotted to the 16 Feb session, our proposal is to adopt this slot for the next call - scheduled for Wednesday, 2 March.
> This is put forward for your consideration ? please feel free to share your views. Should no objection be raised by today, end of your business day, we will proceed with this proposal.
> 
> Many thanks in advance,  
> 
> Very best regards
> 
> Alice
> From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 01:48:06 -0800
> To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" <rt4-whois at icann.org>
> Cc: "Kathage, Tristan" <Tristan.Kathage at dbcde.gov.au>
> Subject: Next conference call - PROPOSAL
> 
> Dear Review Team Members,
> 
> According to our conference call calendar, the next WHOIS RT session is scheduled for 16 February at 4:00 UTC - https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/TeleConferences.
> 
> Please note that this time was initially added to the calendar to accommodate Australia in line with our rotation system. As Peter is out of office for the next two weeks, the RT Chair suggested that we should opt for a time that is more convenient for the RT.
> 
> Since 14:00 UTC used to be the preferred time last autumn for your calls (in line with Doodle poll results),  we are putting forward this alternative for your consideration.
> 
> Please advise whether this is acceptable.
> 
> Rest assured that we will circulate a doodle poll should concerns or drawbacks be raised in reaction to this proposal.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> 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/20110228/217539d2/attachment.html 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Mon Feb 28 17:52:39 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:52:39 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -
In-Reply-To: <0BDDD8B6-6E48-452D-BAE1-B4C5691FB7C8@etlaw.co.uk>
References: <C9911A74.4717%alice.jansen@icann.org><0BDDD8B6-6E48-452D-BAE1-B4C5691FB7C8@etlaw.co.uk>
Message-ID: <809800301-1298915836-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-253318706-@bda297.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

A one hour change is not going to make a difference to me.
So I have no objection. Hopefully others on the team agree.
Lynn

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>
Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:43:21 
To: Alice Jansen<alice.jansen at icann.org>
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS<rt4-whois at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -

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





From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Mon Feb 28 18:02:32 2011
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:02:32 -0300
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -
In-Reply-To: <809800301-1298915836-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-253318706-@bda297.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <C9911A74.4717%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<0BDDD8B6-6E48-452D-BAE1-B4C5691FB7C8@etlaw.co.uk>
	<809800301-1298915836-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-253318706-@bda297.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=2pO8Y63mK0DbVg50bcqfZ2zPhrEfxbEj-Wv6r@mail.gmail.com>

No objections here.

Omar


2011/2/28  <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>:
> A one hour change is not going to make a difference to me.
> So I have no objection. Hopefully others on the team agree.
> Lynn
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>
> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org
> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:43:21
> To: Alice Jansen<alice.jansen at icann.org>
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS<rt4-whois at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 jbladel at godaddy.com  Mon Feb 28 18:04:43 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:04:43 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -
Message-ID: <20110228110443.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.b1e3b49043.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110228/d858e9fe/attachment.html 

From kim at vonarx.ca  Mon Feb 28 18:07:23 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:07:23 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -
In-Reply-To: <809800301-1298915836-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-253318706-@bda297.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <C9911A74.4717%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<0BDDD8B6-6E48-452D-BAE1-B4C5691FB7C8@etlaw.co.uk>
	<809800301-1298915836-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-253318706-@bda297.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <338B2C60-5A28-4A66-9F65-87EC35F7355C@vonarx.ca>

I can't make that call if it is an hour later. Or rather I can only participate for 30 min. 

Kim

Please excuse my typos!  This is sent from my iPhone. 

On 2011-02-28, at 12:52, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com wrote:

> A one hour change is not going to make a difference to me.
> So I have no objection. Hopefully others on the team agree.
> Lynn
> 
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>
> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org
> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:43:21 
> To: Alice Jansen<alice.jansen at icann.org>
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS<rt4-whois at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk  Mon Feb 28 18:23:19 2011
From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (Lemon, Sharon)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:23:19 -0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -
Message-ID: <2211B7B9B95C3A4898AE8A6CBCD8B2B70260495A@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>

Classification: [ NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ]

I won't make it at either time~sorry. 
Please excuse brevity of message, sent from BB. Sharon

________________________________

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org 
To: Alice Jansen 
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS 
Sent: Mon Feb 28 17:43:21 2011
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call - 


Dear all
Please can we move the call to 0500 UTC so that I can join to chair it?  
Emily

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Feb 2011, at 08:41, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:



	Dear Review Team Members,

	As you know, the time of your last conference call changed as Peter was unable to join.
	Pursuant to our rotation system and in line with resolutions adopted during your last call, the next session will be scheduled within working hours of Peter's timezone. 
	Since 4:00 UTC was the time initially allotted to the 16 Feb session, our proposal is to adopt this slot for the next call - scheduled for Wednesday, 2 March.
	This is put forward for your consideration ? please feel free to share your views. Should no objection be raised by today, end of your business day, we will proceed with this proposal.

	Many thanks in advance,  

	Very best regards

	Alice
	
	From: Alice Jansen < <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org> alice.jansen at icann.org>
	Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 01:48:06 -0800
	To: " <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org> rt4-whois at icann.org" < <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org> rt4-whois at icann.org>
	Cc: "Kathage, Tristan" < <mailto:Tristan.Kathage at dbcde.gov.au> Tristan.Kathage at dbcde.gov.au>
	Subject: Next conference call - PROPOSAL
	

	Dear Review Team Members,

	According to our conference call calendar, the next WHOIS RT session is scheduled for 16 February at 4:00 UTC - <https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/TeleConferences> https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/TeleConferences.

	Please note that this time was initially added to the calendar to accommodate Australia in line with our rotation system. As Peter is out of office for the next two weeks, the RT Chair suggested that we should opt for a time that is more convenient for the RT.

	Since 14:00 UTC used to be the preferred time last autumn for your calls (in line with Doodle poll results),  we are putting forward this alternative for your consideration.

	Please advise whether this is acceptable.

	Rest assured that we will circulate a doodle poll should concerns or drawbacks be raised in reaction to this proposal.

	Thank you,

	Very best regards

	Alice

	 

	_______________________________________________
	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/20110228/ffb5d329/attachment.html 

From susank at fb.com  Mon Feb 28 18:53:14 2011
From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:53:14 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -
In-Reply-To: <0BDDD8B6-6E48-452D-BAE1-B4C5691FB7C8@etlaw.co.uk>
References: <C9911A74.4717%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<0BDDD8B6-6E48-452D-BAE1-B4C5691FB7C8@etlaw.co.uk>
Message-ID: <CAD6B3759A38A247AC29584C29147EA4050634@SC-MBX02-3.TheFacebook.com>

I am fine with 0500 UTC

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:43 AM
To: Alice Jansen
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -

Dear all
Please can we move the call to 0500 UTC so that I can join to chair it?
Emily

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Feb 2011, at 08:41, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Review Team Members,

As you know, the time of your last conference call changed as Peter was unable to join.
Pursuant to our rotation system and in line with resolutions adopted during your last call, the next session will be scheduled within working hours of Peter's timezone.
Since 4:00 UTC was the time initially allotted to the 16 Feb session, our proposal is to adopt this slot for the next call - scheduled for Wednesday, 2 March.
This is put forward for your consideration ? please feel free to share your views. Should no objection be raised by today, end of your business day, we will proceed with this proposal.

Many thanks in advance,

Very best regards

Alice
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 01:48:06 -0800
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Cc: "Kathage, Tristan" <Tristan.Kathage at dbcde.gov.au<mailto:Tristan.Kathage at dbcde.gov.au>>
Subject: Next conference call - PROPOSAL

Dear Review Team Members,

According to our conference call calendar, the next WHOIS RT session is scheduled for 16 February at 4:00 UTC - https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/TeleConferences.

Please note that this time was initially added to the calendar to accommodate Australia in line with our rotation system. As Peter is out of office for the next two weeks, the RT Chair suggested that we should opt for a time that is more convenient for the RT.

Since 14:00 UTC used to be the preferred time last autumn for your calls (in line with Doodle poll results),  we are putting forward this alternative for your consideration.

Please advise whether this is acceptable.

Rest assured that we will circulate a doodle poll should concerns or drawbacks be raised in reaction to this proposal.

Thank you,

Very best regards

Alice


_______________________________________________
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/20110228/263292bf/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Mon Feb 28 21:35:08 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:35:08 +0100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda for our next call
References: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B752760587095CE6@pir-mail-01>
Message-ID: <EEDCDFFB-50D4-4AFB-83C1-0D210F62CC3B@etlaw.co.uk>

Hi all
I'm sending this from my phone so apologies for brevity / typos. 

Here's a suggested agenda for Wednesdays call. Please let me have any comments or additional items as soon as possible. 

Kind regards

Emily

> Objective: to finalise the public comment documents
> 
> Update on public comment elements:-

> 1.Notice - Emily Kathy
> 2.Scope and roadmap - ready
> 3. Law enforcement definitions and questions - subteam 
> 4. Applicable laws - subteam
> 5. Consumers - subteam
> 6. Producers - subteam
> Comments and discussion
> Sign off for publication
> 
> 7. Update on schedule for SF (Alice)
> 
> 8. Update on questions for staff (Denise)
> 
> 9. Discussion re budget (Sarmad's recent question)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110228/17c385d0/attachment.html 

From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Mon Feb 28 21:53:27 2011
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:53:27 +1100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call - [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <CAD6B3759A38A247AC29584C29147EA4050634@SC-MBX02-3.TheFacebook.com>
References: <C9911A74.4717%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<0BDDD8B6-6E48-452D-BAE1-B4C5691FB7C8@etlaw.co.uk>
	<CAD6B3759A38A247AC29584C29147EA4050634@SC-MBX02-3.TheFacebook.com>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302604FD51@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hi all,

I?m fine with 0500 UTC.

I look forward to catching up then.

I?m not sure if my previous email got through, but if not I?m hoping that  someone can help point me to the latest definitions and any other documents (e.g. consultation questions) for law enforcement and applicable laws ? this would really help with preparation for the teleconference.  I see that there are already definitions of these on the wiki, but I wanted to confirm that these are the proposed finals?

Thanks,

Peter

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi
Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2011 5:53 AM
To: Emily Taylor; Alice Jansen
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -

I am fine with 0500 UTC

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:43 AM
To: Alice Jansen
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Next conference call -

Dear all
Please can we move the call to 0500 UTC so that I can join to chair it?
Emily

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Feb 2011, at 08:41, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Review Team Members,

As you know, the time of your last conference call changed as Peter was unable to join.
Pursuant to our rotation system and in line with resolutions adopted during your last call, the next session will be scheduled within working hours of Peter's timezone.
Since 4:00 UTC was the time initially allotted to the 16 Feb session, our proposal is to adopt this slot for the next call - scheduled for Wednesday, 2 March.
This is put forward for your consideration ? please feel free to share your views. Should no objection be raised by today, end of your business day, we will proceed with this proposal.

Many thanks in advance,

Very best regards

Alice
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 01:48:06 -0800
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Cc: "Kathage, Tristan" <Tristan.Kathage at dbcde.gov.au<mailto:Tristan.Kathage at dbcde.gov.au>>
Subject: Next conference call - PROPOSAL

Dear Review Team Members,

According to our conference call calendar, the next WHOIS RT session is scheduled for 16 February at 4:00 UTC - https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/TeleConferences.

Please note that this time was initially added to the calendar to accommodate Australia in line with our rotation system. As Peter is out of office for the next two weeks, the RT Chair suggested that we should opt for a time that is more convenient for the RT.

Since 14:00 UTC used to be the preferred time last autumn for your calls (in line with Doodle poll results),  we are putting forward this alternative for your consideration.

Please advise whether this is acceptable.

Rest assured that we will circulate a doodle poll should concerns or drawbacks be raised in reaction to this proposal.

Thank you,

Very best regards

Alice


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


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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/20110301/5632d98e/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Mar  1 09:09:20 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 01:09:20 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review
Message-ID: <C9927809.486A%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached a public comment draft announcement for your review and consideration in anticipation of your conference call scheduled for tomorrow.

Kindly note that this was drafted and approved by Kathy and Emily.

Many thanks in advance,

Very best regards

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110301/1447cf42/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WHOIS Policy Review Team - Call for Public Comments.docx
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 149260 bytes
Desc: WHOIS Policy Review Team - Call for Public Comments.docx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110301/1447cf42/WHOISPolicyReviewTeam-CallforPublicComments.docx 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Mar  1 11:20:15 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 03:20:15 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] SV meeting - Schedule
Message-ID: <C99296BC.48BD%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,
Please find below your Silicon Valley schedule in anticipation of your conference call scheduled for tomorrow.

Kindly note that this is available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting
F2F Meeting

Sunday, 13 March - 09:00 - 18:00 - Grand Ballroom

Interaction with Constituencies

SSAC: Tuesday, 15 March - 09:30 - 10:00 - Tower Salon A

Registrars: Tuesday, 15 March - 10:00 - 10:30 - Grand Ballroom

ccNSO: Wednesday, 16 March - 12:40 - 13:00 - California West

Registries: Tuesday, 15 March - 14:30 - 15:00 - Elizabethan D

Interaction with the Community

Wednesday, 16 March - 11:00 - 12:00 - Elizabethan A-C

Thanks,

Very best regards

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110301/270bec31/attachment.html 

From kKleiman at pir.org  Tue Mar  1 12:41:37 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:41:37 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review
In-Reply-To: <C9927809.486A%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <C9927809.486A%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B752760587095D87@pir-mail-01>

Hi All,
There was a little help from Alice - tx you, Alice!   If everyone could please review the public comment in preparation for our meeting tomorrow, we would appreciate it. Further, if the subteams could please check their materials to ensure that we used the most recent version of everything, we would appreciate it!

Thanks so much,
Kathy

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:09 AM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached a public comment draft announcement for your review and consideration in anticipation of your conference call scheduled for tomorrow.

Kindly note that this was drafted and approved by Kathy and Emily.

Many thanks in advance,

Very best regards

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110301/027f7e90/attachment.html 

From kim at vonarx.ca  Tue Mar  1 20:34:19 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:34:19 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Slightly revised Law Enforcement definition
Message-ID: <22B90FC7-AADF-476D-8EC5-754B2A0CE442@vonarx.ca>

Dear All: 

I've edited the law enforcement definition a little to fix a few spelling mistakes.  Can I ask for the revised definition to replace the currently proposed one:

Law Enforcement shall be defined as a department, division, section, branch, body corporate, foundation, or association all of which are part and parcel of a nationally or internationally recognized government and whose responsibility is to maintain, co-ordinate, and enforce laws, regulations, or multi-national treaty obligations within the internationally recognized authorized boundaries of such government.

Thanks. 

Kim 

__________________________________

kim at vonarx.ca
+1 (613) 286-4445

"Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110301/95011ba7/attachment.html 

From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Wed Mar  2 00:15:47 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:15:47 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review
In-Reply-To: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B752760587095D87@pir-mail-01>
References: <C9927809.486A%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B752760587095D87@pir-mail-01>
Message-ID: <B006B711-1BA8-4891-81CF-70F95A7986F1@paypal.com>

This looks good, though I would like to suggest a change to the definition of Consumer. I would change the following: "and Users (e.g. individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who use the data legitimately) of the WHOIS data" to "and, Users (e.g. individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who use the data legitimately) of the WHOIS data, and non-Users.

I believe this accurately captures our intention for "All global Internet users".

On Mar 1, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

Hi All,
There was a little help from Alice ? tx you, Alice!   If everyone could please review the public comment in preparation for our meeting tomorrow, we would appreciate it. Further, if the subteams could please check their materials to ensure that we used the most recent version of everything, we would appreciate it!

Thanks so much,
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 Alice Jansen
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:09 AM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org> WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached a public comment draft announcement for your review and consideration in anticipation of your conference call scheduled for tomorrow.

Kindly note that this was drafted and approved by Kathy and Emily.

Many thanks in advance,

Very best regards

Alice
<ATT00001..txt>




From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Wed Mar  2 01:44:33 2011
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:44:33 +1100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review
	[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <C9927809.486A%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <C9927809.486A%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A30260AFFB2@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hello all,

Thanks Alice for circulating this document, which I think will form an excellent basis for the team's consultation with the community.

My comments are below.

As you'll see, they are primarily attempts to keep the definitions broad, inclusive and as plain-English as possible, recognising the broad range of stakeholders we will be targeting.

There are also some comments which I offer for discussion, as some of the proposed wording seems to me to imply a decision or inclination on the part of the review team on issues that have yet to be discussed in detail.

I would also like to discuss the survey, as I am unsure what this is intended to achieve.

I am happy to discuss any of these comments, and look forward to today's teleconference.

Kind regards,

Peter



Law enforcement

As noted in my earlier email, I have some reservations about the law enforcement definition that has been proposed. I think I understand what is intended and why some of the caveats have been included, but from my perspective I think a simpler formulation would achieve the same result with less ambiguity and sensitivity.

As such I propose the following, based on earlier definitions circulated by the sub-group:

"Law Enforcement shall be considered to be an organisation endorsed by a government and whose responsibilities include the maintenance, co-ordination, or enforcement of laws, multi-national treaty or other legal obligations."

My reasoning is below:


*       The exclusive list of 'department, division...' etc appears to be unnecessary, and risks excluding a legitimate law enforcement organisation. Reference to an organisation appears to achieve the same goal.

*       I do not understand what is meant by 'part and parcel'. In my view, reference to an organisation 'endorsed' by a government (noting that it must have specific and legitimate legal responsibilities) is sufficient and clearer.

*       I suggest that the reference to 'responsibilities' should be inclusive, as a legitimate law enforcement organisation may have other responsibilities (e.g. advising government t on the effectiveness of laws etc).

*       I understand the reference to 'regulations', but think that it should be broader (in Australia, regulation has a particular meaning and is only one type of 'legislative instrument', all of which have the force of law). I propose that we use 'other legal obligations' instead, as a broader formulation.

*       I do not think the references to boundaries are necessary, and raise sensitive geo-political issues beyond the remit of the review team.

Applicable laws

With regard to applicable laws, I think the definition does a good job of covering the field of possible laws that regulate personal data.

However, I note that the relevant sentence in the AoC refers to an obligation on ICANN to enforce its WHOIS policies (without caveats). Without specific advice from ICANN on what it considers the relevant laws to be, I propose a simple change to the proposed definition to make it inclusive rather than exclusive. In this way, if ICANN decides that the contract/commercial law of a country  is relevant to its ability to enforce a contract obligation, then we haven't inadvertently excluded this.

I also have concerns about the phrase 'internationally recognised legal norms', as agreement about what an internationally recognised legal norm is would appear to be beyond the scope of the review team. I have tried to simplify the definition accordingly:

"Includes any and all local and national laws that regulate and/or control the collection, use, access, and disclosure of personally identifiable information. It may also include other relevant legal obligations or treaties."

Consumer trust

I think the definition is good, noting that I agree with Bill's recently proposed edit.

However, I have some reservations about the preamble. If this is to be retained, I would suggest that it be generalised to avoid the impression that the review is focused on one particular jurisdiction, region or other type of grouping.

As such, I propose the following to replace the existing two paragraphs of preamble:

"There is no single universally agreed definition of 'consumer', and legal definitions in different jurisdictions vary widely. Some are narrow and limited to 'natural persons', while others are broader and include various types of organisations.

The WHOIS review team has been considering a broad interpretation of the term 'consumer', as this would allow a broad range of perspectives to be considered by the review team. This appears to be consistent with the intention of the drafters of the AoC."

With regard to 'B. What promotes consumer trust?', I would like to discuss further the phrase 'WHOIS data is provided accurately and with consent'. I initially read this as a simple recognition of the need to consider privacy issues. However, I now wonder whether this can be read as an unambiguous statement of a specific requirement (i.e. the need for consent). If so, I do not think we have reached a settled position on this issue yet. I'm not advocating a view either way on this, and I think the discussion forward will need to be detailed and nuanced, but I am concerned that the existing text could be seen to close off these discussions. I have a similar comment on question 5 in the survey, which refers to 'legitimate options available to hide the WHOIS data'. Again, I do not think the existing situation is so clear cut, and I personally have not got a settled position on this.

With regard to the survey as a whole, I have some comments on the wording of specific questions (particularly relating to clarity), but I wanted to raise a broader issue. In particular, I note that the current proposed survey is essentially closed and qualitative, and I wonder what exactly we are aiming to achieve from it?



From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2011 8:09 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached a public comment draft announcement for your review and consideration in anticipation of your conference call scheduled for tomorrow.

Kindly note that this was drafted and approved by Kathy and Emily.

Many thanks in advance,

Very best regards

Alice


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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/20110302/71528814/attachment.html 

From kim at vonarx.ca  Wed Mar  2 02:57:30 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:57:30 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review
	[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A30260AFFB2@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
References: <C9927809.486A%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A30260AFFB2@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <CD485973-ECA8-43E8-93B7-38E496F2F13D@vonarx.ca>

Peter et al, 

Thank you for your very thorough and valuable points. Since I am not sure whether I will be able to make the call tonight, I thought I should send my responses now and that will also give everyone at least some time to mull over them.  Generally, I certainly understand your concerns and attempt to be as inclusive as possible and that is, quite often, one of the most difficult issues in legal drafting.  As I am sure everyone has seen in some contract or another a definition which seems to be quite clear and it even lists some definitive examples, but then there is all of a sudden a sub-clause that is the "catch-all" phrase which basically says "and everything else that could possibly be included".  The problem with those kind of approaches is that it makes legal documents and legislation virtually impossible to interpret accurately and effectively and the courts have to parse the "intent" from external sources, i.e, outside the four corners of the contract or statute.  Therefore, I am a strong proponent of clear and, if possible, closely defined terms, definitions, etc.  The reason for that is that it is always easier to give more down the road than to take away.  With respect to "law enforcement" and applicable law" I think that your broader definitions are a little bit too broad for the purpose that the AOC statement puts forth: 

?ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires 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. One year from the effective date of this document and then no less frequently than every three years thereafter, ICANN will organize 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.? 

I feel that your definitions are more encompassing than is required for the purpose of the definition, i.e., in relation to WHOIS only.  

I have provided my specific comments to your points below:

>  
> Law enforcement
>  
> As noted in my earlier email, I have some reservations about the law enforcement definition that has been proposed. I think I understand what is intended and why some of the caveats have been included, but from my perspective I think a simpler formulation would achieve the same result with less ambiguity and sensitivity.
>  
> As such I propose the following, based on earlier definitions circulated by the sub-group:
>  
> ?Law Enforcement shall be considered to be an organisation endorsed by a government and whose responsibilities include the maintenance, co-ordination, or enforcement of laws, multi-national treaty or other legal obligations.?
>  
=> "endorsed" is a fairly ambiguous term and can be interpreted too broadly.  Indeed, certain IP constituencies here in Canada are "endorsed" by the government, but, by no means, I would argue should be considered "law enforcement".  Also, for example, chartered banks are "endorsed" by government, but I don't think anyone would suggest that they should also be included in "law enforcement".  All of the aforementioned is not fettered by the second part of the definition, i.e,. "whose responsibility include..." etc.  since either of the examples I raised do, maintain, co-ordinate, etc. some laws of some sort.  

> My reasoning is below:
>  
> ?       The exclusive list of ?department, division...? etc appears to be unnecessary, and risks excluding a legitimate law enforcement organisation. Reference to an organisation appears to achieve the same goal.

=> just the reference to an "organization" does not result in the same meaning and is significantly broader especially with the word following it - "endorsed".

> ?       I do not understand what is meant by ?part and parcel?. In my view, reference to an organisation ?endorsed? by a government (noting that it must have specific and legitimate legal responsibilities) is sufficient and clearer.

=> the part and parcel was meant to convey that it has to be part of a government and cannot be just an entity which is, e.g., an IP constituency or a bank some of which are "organizations" and are "endorsed" by governments. 

> ?       I suggest that the reference to ?responsibilities? should be inclusive, as a legitimate law enforcement organisation may have other responsibilities (e.g. advising government t on the effectiveness of laws etc).

=> the "maintenance, co-ordination" covers the aspect of the example you raised.  Indeed, I would argue that you cannot maintain and co-ordinate anything unless you have some metrics against which you measure your success in maintaining and co-ordinating.  However, the advising responsibilities with respect to policy changes (which then eventually may lead to revised laws) are not.  

> ?       I understand the reference to ?regulations?, but think that it should be broader (in Australia, regulation has a particular meaning and is only one type of ?legislative instrument?, all of which have the force of law). I propose that we use ?other legal obligations? instead, as a broader formulation.

=> the addition of "other legal obligations" makes the entire definition fairly obsolete because with the other changes proposed, the pool of "actual" law enforcement (based on the revised definition) is exceptionally broad and I believe that that opens the door for exactly the kind of organizations we intended to exclude.  I agree with your point that regarding regulations as they do also have a specific meaning here in Canada.  In essence, regulations are attached to statutes as the "operating" part of a statute.  To be more inclusive, we should also include directives, ordinances, by-laws, etc.  In light of that, I would propose that we change that part of the definition to simply refer to "laws or multi-national treaty obligations" or simply "government imposed legal obligations".  

> ?       I do not think the references to boundaries are necessary, and raise sensitive geo-political issues beyond the remit of the review team.

=> I would argue that it is actually quite important.  While I understand your concerns, but there are numerous countries which have and still are using their "long arm jurisdiction" to influence the behavior of people outside their respective jurisdictional boundaries.   

>  
> Applicable laws
>  
> With regard to applicable laws, I think the definition does a good job of covering the field of possible laws that regulate personal data.
>  
> However, I note that the relevant sentence in the AoC refers to an obligation on ICANN to enforce its WHOIS policies (without caveats). Without specific advice from ICANN on what it considers the relevant laws to be, I propose a simple change to the proposed definition to make it inclusive rather than exclusive. In this way, if ICANN decides that the contract/commercial law of a country  is relevant to its ability to enforce a contract obligation, then we haven?t inadvertently excluded this.
>  
> I also have concerns about the phrase ?internationally recognised legal norms?, as agreement about what an internationally recognised legal norm is would appear to be beyond the scope of the review team. I have tried to simplify the definition accordingly:
>  
> ?Includes any and all local and national laws that regulate and/or control the collection, use, access, and disclosure of personally identifiable information. It may also include other relevant legal obligations or treaties.?
>  

=> I do believe that the reference to the human rights norms etc. is an important one and as such I don't think it should be deleted.  With respect to "other relevant legal obligations or treaties", I think that makes the definition to broad and as such defeats the purpose of defining the term "applicable law".  I do understand your point about trying to make it more inclusive, but we, as the sub-team, were of the view that when you boil all of the aspects of the WHOIS down to its core, the issues at hand are: collection, use, access, disclosure, and destruction of personally identifiable information.  All the other issues, such as torts, contract, ip, etc. laws are laws which provide for limits and exceptions to the general tenant of the collection, use, access, disclosure, and destruction of personally identifiable information.  We are not talking about "legitimate uses" in this definition, but are simply stating that  the core applicable law is founded in the administration, within a government, of the collection, use, access, disclosure, and destruction of personally identifiable information.  Each privacy law and the EU or the UN data/privacy protection regime carve out numerous exceptions.  Therefore, the other laws, uses, etc. are by reference included in this definition through the respective privacy and data protection regimes in each country.  

I hope my rambling made some sense.  Again thank you for your comments and I think this discussion is a very beneficial one for all of us because it leads us to a clearer and, eventually, mutual understanding of all the issues involved in this review which, in turn will provide us withe hymnbook from which we all can sing.  

Kim










-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110301/f182d53d/attachment.html 

From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Wed Mar  2 04:33:49 2011
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 15:33:49 +1100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review
	[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <CD485973-ECA8-43E8-93B7-38E496F2F13D@vonarx.ca>
References: <C9927809.486A%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A30260AFFB2@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
	<CD485973-ECA8-43E8-93B7-38E496F2F13D@vonarx.ca>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3026104406@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hi Kim,

Thanks for your comprehensive reply. I agree that this is a useful discussion for the review team as a whole, and wanted to follow up your points further.

At the risk of losing the thread of the conversation, I have inserted my comments into your email below.  In case my formatting efforts to make the new text clear fail, I have put a 'P:' in from of each of my comments - I hope this makes sense when you read the below.

Kind regards,

Peter

From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2011 1:57 PM
To: Nettlefold, Peter
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Peter et al,

Thank you for your very thorough and valuable points. Since I am not sure whether I will be able to make the call tonight, I thought I should send my responses now and that will also give everyone at least some time to mull over them.  Generally, I certainly understand your concerns and attempt to be as inclusive as possible and that is, quite often, one of the most difficult issues in legal drafting.  As I am sure everyone has seen in some contract or another a definition which seems to be quite clear and it even lists some definitive examples, but then there is all of a sudden a sub-clause that is the "catch-all" phrase which basically says "and everything else that could possibly be included".  The problem with those kind of approaches is that it makes legal documents and legislation virtually impossible to interpret accurately and effectively and the courts have to parse the "intent" from external sources, i.e, outside the four corners of the contract or statute.  Therefore, I am a strong proponent of clear and, if possible, closely defined terms, definitions, etc.

P: I agree with your sentiments, and I am also an advocate for clarity. In this case, I had understood that we are trying to reach out to the community for input. As a result of that input, we may decide that our initial definitions are too broad, too narrow or even inappropriate. If we get some responses that we later decide are out of scope because our initial definitions were too broad, then I do not see a particular issue with that (if that were the case, then presumably we would have reasoned arguments to explain our position). I would be more concerned if someone with a legitimate interest did not interact with the review team as they felt excluded. If I have misunderstood this process, and we are offering final definitions designed to include and exclude stakeholders, and that these will form a pre-set basis for our final analysis and recommendations, then I think we need to have a different conversation.

The reason for that is that it is always easier to give more down the road than to take away.  With respect to "law enforcement" and applicable law" I think that your broader definitions are a little bit too broad for the purpose that the AOC statement puts forth:

"ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires 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. One year from the effective date of this document and then no less frequently than every three years thereafter, ICANN will organize 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."

I feel that your definitions are more encompassing than is required for the purpose of the definition, i.e., in relation to WHOIS only.

I have provided my specific comments to your points below:


Law enforcement

As noted in my earlier email, I have some reservations about the law enforcement definition that has been proposed. I think I understand what is intended and why some of the caveats have been included, but from my perspective I think a simpler formulation would achieve the same result with less ambiguity and sensitivity.

As such I propose the following, based on earlier definitions circulated by the sub-group:

"Law Enforcement shall be considered to be an organisation endorsed by a government and whose responsibilities include the maintenance, co-ordination, or enforcement of laws, multi-national treaty or other legal obligations."

=> "endorsed" is a fairly ambiguous term and can be interpreted too broadly.  Indeed, certain IP constituencies here in Canada are "endorsed" by the government, but, by no means, I would argue should be considered "law enforcement".  Also, for example, chartered banks are "endorsed" by government, but I don't think anyone would suggest that they should also be included in "law enforcement".  All of the aforementioned is not fettered by the second part of the definition, i.e,. "whose responsibility include..." etc.  since either of the examples I raised do, maintain, co-ordinate, etc. some laws of some sort.

P: Leaving aside the question of whether 'part and parcel' or 'endorsed' is clearer or more appropriate, I would respond directly to what I think your point is - i.e. the exclusion of some organisations. I would pose the following question: if a relevant government decided to endorse an organisation with responsibility for maintaining, co-ordinating or enforcing laws, is it really the place of this review team to argue that this is inappropriate? If so, on what basis?

My reasoning is below:

*       The exclusive list of 'department, division...' etc appears to be unnecessary, and risks excluding a legitimate law enforcement organisation. Reference to an organisation appears to achieve the same goal.

=> just the reference to an "organization" does not result in the same meaning and is significantly broader especially with the word following it - "endorsed".

P: I'm not wedded to the word 'organisation'. I only offer it as an alternative to an exclusive list, which has an inherent risk of exclusion.

*       I do not understand what is meant by 'part and parcel'. In my view, reference to an organisation 'endorsed' by a government (noting that it must have specific and legitimate legal responsibilities) is sufficient and clearer.

=> the part and parcel was meant to convey that it has to be part of a government and cannot be just an entity which is, e.g., an IP constituency or a bank some of which are "organizations" and are "endorsed" by governments.

P: See above.

*       I suggest that the reference to 'responsibilities' should be inclusive, as a legitimate law enforcement organisation may have other responsibilities (e.g. advising government t on the effectiveness of laws etc).

=> the "maintenance, co-ordination" covers the aspect of the example you raised.  Indeed, I would argue that you cannot maintain and co-ordinate anything unless you have some metrics against which you measure your success in maintaining and co-ordinating.  However, the advising responsibilities with respect to policy changes (which then eventually may lead to revised laws) are not.

P: I agree with your response to my example. My concern is that we exclude an agency that has a legitimate role in law enforcement because that is not its only function. So long as an organisation has such a legitimate role, I think it should be included.

*       I understand the reference to 'regulations', but think that it should be broader (in Australia, regulation has a particular meaning and is only one type of 'legislative instrument', all of which have the force of law). I propose that we use 'other legal obligations' instead, as a broader formulation.

=> the addition of "other legal obligations" makes the entire definition fairly obsolete because with the other changes proposed, the pool of "actual" law enforcement (based on the revised definition) is exceptionally broad and I believe that that opens the door for exactly the kind of organizations we intended to exclude.  I agree with your point that regarding regulations as they do also have a specific meaning here in Canada.  In essence, regulations are attached to statutes as the "operating" part of a statute.  To be more inclusive, we should also include directives, ordinances, by-laws, etc.  In light of that, I would propose that we change that part of the definition to simply refer to "laws or multi-national treaty obligations" or simply "government imposed legal obligations".

P: I agree. I had a similar discussion with stakeholders, but we could not think of an alternative that worked. You've provided one, and so I'd support your formulation of 'government imposed legal obligations'.

*       I do not think the references to boundaries are necessary, and raise sensitive geo-political issues beyond the remit of the review team.

=> I would argue that it is actually quite important.  While I understand your concerns, but there are numerous countries which have and still are using their "long arm jurisdiction" to influence the behavior of people outside their respective jurisdictional boundaries.

P: I have to disagree. It seems to me to be sensitive territory, and I don't understand what would be gained by the review team focusing on this.

Applicable laws

With regard to applicable laws, I think the definition does a good job of covering the field of possible laws that regulate personal data.

However, I note that the relevant sentence in the AoC refers to an obligation on ICANN to enforce its WHOIS policies (without caveats). Without specific advice from ICANN on what it considers the relevant laws to be, I propose a simple change to the proposed definition to make it inclusive rather than exclusive. In this way, if ICANN decides that the contract/commercial law of a country  is relevant to its ability to enforce a contract obligation, then we haven't inadvertently excluded this.

I also have concerns about the phrase 'internationally recognised legal norms', as agreement about what an internationally recognised legal norm is would appear to be beyond the scope of the review team. I have tried to simplify the definition accordingly:

"Includes any and all local and national laws that regulate and/or control the collection, use, access, and disclosure of personally identifiable information. It may also include other relevant legal obligations or treaties."


=> I do believe that the reference to the human rights norms etc. is an important one and as such I don't think it should be deleted.

P: No argument from me that human rights are important. What I do question is what is meant by an 'internationally recognised legal norm'?

With respect to "other relevant legal obligations or treaties", I think that makes the definition to broad and as such defeats the purpose of defining the term "applicable law".  I do understand your point about trying to make it more inclusive, but we, as the sub-team, were of the view that when you boil all of the aspects of the WHOIS down to its core, the issues at hand are: collection, use, access, disclosure, and destruction of personally identifiable information.  All the other issues, such as torts, contract, ip, etc. laws are laws which provide for limits and exceptions to the general tenant of the collection, use, access, disclosure, and destruction of personally identifiable information.  We are not talking about "legitimate uses" in this definition, but are simply stating that  the core applicable law is founded in the administration, within a government, of the collection, use, access, disclosure, and destruction of personally identifiable information.

P: I agree, and disagree. The problem may be that I didn't explain myself fully (although I accept that you may still disagree). My point is that 'applicable laws' is set out in the AoC differently to the parts that set out the scope for the review team. As such, it covers 'applicable laws' from ICANN's perspective in 'enforcing its existing policy'. I think we've all agreed that one way that ICANN implements and enforces its policies (even if they're not the official 'policy' as such) is through its RAA and RRA contracts. The extent to which ICANN can enforce these is presumably subject to commercial/company/contract etc law. That is my point. I agree that it's not directly related to the WHOIS data as such, but may be relevant to how effectively ICANN can implement and enforce its WHOIS policies.

Each privacy law and the EU or the UN data/privacy protection regime carve out numerous exceptions.  Therefore, the other laws, uses, etc. are by reference included in this definition through the respective privacy and data protection regimes in each country.

I hope my rambling made some sense.  Again thank you for your comments and I think this discussion is a very beneficial one for all of us because it leads us to a clearer and, eventually, mutual understanding of all the issues involved in this review which, in turn will provide us withe hymnbook from which we all can sing.

Kim












-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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/20110302/8ce968e0/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Wed Mar  2 05:04:57 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:04:57 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adobe Room
In-Reply-To: <C9819750.3F86%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <C9939039.496D%alice.jansen@icann.org>


Dear Review Team Members,

Please be kindly reminded to join the Adobe Connect room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/

No password required ? please enter as "guest".

Thanks,

Best regards

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110301/252f8057/attachment.html 

From sarmad at cantab.net  Wed Mar  2 05:13:51 2011
From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr. Sarmad Hussain)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:13:51 +0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review
In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A30260AFFB2@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
References: <C9927809.486A%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A30260AFFB2@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <004201cbd898$a2173690$e645a3b0$@net>

 

 

With regard to ?B. What promotes consumer trust??, I would like to discuss
further the phrase ?WHOIS data is provided accurately and with consent?. I
initially read this as a simple recognition of the need to consider privacy
issues. However, I now wonder whether this can be read as an unambiguous
statement of a specific requirement (i.e. the need for consent). If so, I do
not think we have reached a settled position on this issue yet. I?m not
advocating a view either way on this, and I think the discussion forward
will need to be detailed and nuanced, but I am concerned that the existing
text could be seen to close off these discussions. I have a similar comment
on question 5 in the survey, which refers to ?legitimate options available
to hide the WHOIS data?. Again, I do not think the existing situation is so
clear cut, and I personally have not got a settled position on this.

 

Sarmad ?

Trust is a perceptual measure.  Understanding of privacy and legitimacy may
vary from one person to another, depending on the culture they are coming
from.  Thus, these questions can still gauge perceptions even with agreeing
with definitions which are not clearly settled.  However, this is not to say
that we should work harder to define many of these terms as clearly as we
can.

 

With regard to the survey as a whole, I have some comments on the wording of
specific questions (particularly relating to clarity), but I wanted to raise
a broader issue. In particular, I note that the current proposed survey is
essentially closed and qualitative, and I wonder what exactly we are aiming
to achieve from it? 

 

Sarmad ?

We are perhaps wanting to break down different aspects of ?Consumer Trust?
to better measure how the relevant stakeholders perceive the contribution of
the service in the context.  The break down will also help identify which
specific areas of the cumulative ?Consumer Trust? need to be addressed.
This is in the context of the our specific mandate: ?review of WHOIS policy
and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy 
 promotes
consumer trust?

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2011 8:09 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Public Comments - for your review

 

Dear Review Team Members,

 

Please find attached a public comment draft announcement for your review and
consideration in anticipation of your conference call scheduled for
tomorrow.

 

Kindly note that this was drafted and approved by Kathy and Emily.

 

Many thanks in advance,

 

Very best regards

 

Alice


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

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.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/01/11
12:34:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110302/53ac1cbb/attachment.html 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Wed Mar  2 05:38:00 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:38:00 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Law enforcement definition
Message-ID: <20110301223800.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.d5ce705042.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110301/1c90a920/attachment.html 

From Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru  Wed Mar  2 07:06:04 2011
From: Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru (Yakushev Mikhail)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:06:04 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Law enforcement definition
In-Reply-To: <20110301223800.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.d5ce705042.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
References: <20110301223800.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.d5ce705042.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <7C0268D000FB534D8BEDFAD61C5E72A80BB251@OWA.mazal.ru>

Colleagues,
I was suddenly disconnected ? is it possible to arrange the next call in the afternoon European time, not early in the morning?
Thanks in advance,
Michael

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 8:38 AM
To: Emily Taylor
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Law enforcement definition

Here is the email I have referenced on our call regarding an earlier draft of a definition for law enforcement.
Lynn
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Law enforcement definition
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
Date: Tue, February 01, 2011 1:06 pm
To: Kim von Arx <kim at vonarx.ca<mailto:kim at vonarx.ca>>, "James M. Bladel"
<jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org> WHOIS" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>

Dear Kim and James

Thank you for circulating your drafts and status in advance of the meeting.  Groups D and E (Consumers/Consumer Trust and Applicable Laws), is there anything you can share prior to the telecon?

Kind regards

Emily

On 31 Jan 2011, at 14:43, Kim G. von Arx wrote:


Dear All:

here is our sub-group's suggested definition of law enforcement:

an organization or the activity of an organization all of which are authorized by a nationally or internationally recognized government to maintain, co-ordinate, and enforce  laws, regulations, or multi-national treaty obligations within the internationally recognized authorized boundaries of that nationally or internationally recognized government

Please note that I am sending this without having received Lutz's comments, and as such it may be subject to some changes from his end.

Kim



__________________________________

kim at vonarx.ca<mailto:kim at vonarx.ca>
+1 (613) 286-4445

"Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."







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

[Image removed by sender. 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<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/20110302/09bd128a/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/20110302/09bd128a/image001.jpg 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Mar  2 07:21:28 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:21:28 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
Message-ID: <20110302002128.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f65e7a02f4.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110302/733a167d/attachment.html 

From sarmad at cantab.net  Wed Mar  2 09:55:16 2011
From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr. Sarmad Hussain)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:55:16 +0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
In-Reply-To: <20110302002128.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f65e7a02f4.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20110302002128.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f65e7a02f4.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <00a901cbd8bf$f25f34f0$d71d9ed0$@net>

Ok, though with minor wording adjustments; see below.

 

 

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:21 PM
To: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"

 

Team: 

 

As discussed during our call, here is the proposed bifurcated definition of "consumer" for inclusion in our call for comments. It has been chopped up a bit for readability, but I did endeavor to preserve the overall meaning.

 

I've also modified the "Feedback Requested" to be more open ended.

 

Thoughts / feeedback?  I'm off to bed now, but will check back in a few hours.

 

Thanks--

 

J.

_________________________________

In the global sense, "consumer" may mean:

 * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities,







And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and Whois Service may mean:



* Any consumer that acts as a  Producer of WHOIS data  (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service (e.g. Registrars), and User of WHOIS data (e.g.    individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.).





Feedback request from community

 

Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition.  Is it too broad or too restrictive?  In either case, how should it be changed.



 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/02/11 00:34:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110302/6edb2370/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Wed Mar  2 13:41:23 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:41:23 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
In-Reply-To: <00a901cbd8bf$f25f34f0$d71d9ed0$@net>
References: <20110302002128.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f65e7a02f4.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
	<00a901cbd8bf$f25f34f0$d71d9ed0$@net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikVR5K6e+zME5M7bbZ003ZZcBt8Y8zjatHJXN8L@mail.gmail.com>

Hi James, and Sarmad

Thank you both for this contribution, which I think captures the discussion
we had this morning.  I propose to take Sarmad's amended version for
insertion into the public comment document, unless I hear any contrary views
by 0800 UTC tomorrow (Thursday).  We can then publish the Call for Public
Comment, which would be greatly appreciated.

Well done everyone.

Kind regards

Emily


On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Dr. Sarmad Hussain <sarmad at cantab.net>wrote:

>  Ok, though with minor wording adjustments; see below.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *James M. Bladel
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:21 PM
> *To:* RT4 WHOIS
> *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
>
>
>
> Team:
>
>
>
> As discussed during our call, here is the proposed bifurcated definition of
> "consumer" for inclusion in our call for comments. It has been chopped up a
> bit for readability, but I did endeavor to preserve the overall meaning.
>
>
>
> I've also modified the "Feedback Requested" to be more open ended.
>
>
>
> Thoughts / feeedback?  I'm off to bed now, but will check back in a few
> hours.
>
>
>
> Thanks--
>
>
>
> J.
>
> _________________________________
>
> *In the global sense, "consumer" **may **mean:*
>
> * * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and
> non-commercial entities, government and academic entities,
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *And specifically within the context of this review, a "**consumer**"**w.r.t. WHOIS data and
> **W**hois** **Service** **may **mean:*
>
>   ** Any consumer that acts as a  Producer of WHOIS data  (see above),
> Maintainer** of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service** (e.g.
> Registrars), and User** of WHOIS data **(e.g.    individuals, commercial
> or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.).*
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *Feedback request from community*
>
>
>
> Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this
> definition.  Is it too broad or too restrictive?  In either case, how
> should it be changed.
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/02/11
> 00:34:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110302/bff06601/attachment.html 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Mar  2 14:40:49 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 07:40:49 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
Message-ID: <20110302074049.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.9bddc4f56c.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110302/7b5bf586/attachment.html 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Wed Mar  2 16:09:31 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:09:31 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
Message-ID: <20110302090931.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.c2a3319ae8.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110302/5ca7aca7/attachment.html 

From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Wed Mar  2 17:09:43 2011
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:09:43 -0300
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adobe Room
In-Reply-To: <C9939039.496D%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <C9819750.3F86%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<C9939039.496D%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinv78gg-OuZ7in2RL3e4Kae0C4SkUruHJS-eDt+@mail.gmail.com>

Dear RT members,

The meeting was scheduled for 2AM brazilian time, I was not able to
attend. I am sorry, I just arrived from a trip.

Omar



2011/3/2 Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>:
>
> Dear Review Team Members,
> Please be kindly reminded to join the Adobe Connect
> room:?http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/
> No password required ? please enter as "guest".
> Thanks,
> Best regards
> Alice
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>



From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Thu Mar  3 22:40:02 2011
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:40:02 +1100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <20110302090931.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.c2a3319ae8.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
References: <20110302090931.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.c2a3319ae8.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302610512A@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hi all,

Sorry for the slow reply, but I also think this is a good basis for our consultation.

I have two brief comments:


1.       I think we need an ?or? in the WHOIS consumer category list, rather than an ?and? (otherwise it would be a very high bar indeed to be considered to be a consumer).  I?ve made that change below in capitals so it stands out.



2.       I?m not sure what is meant by a ?provider?. I note that this isn?t a category we?ve used in the ?Producers and Maintainers? definition that we?ve agreed to go forward with. So, is there an example of a ?provider? that is not captured under the ?maintainer? definition? If so, do we need to revisit our ?Producers and Maintainers? definition?

Also, and just for the future, I think it was Kathy (?) that noted on our call that one sleeper in this formulation is the word ?legitimately? (and the inherent reference to its converse: ?illegitimate?). It will be interesting to see what the public comment returns on this, as this will be one (of the many) issues we will need to focus on in some detail going forward.

Cheers,

Peter

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:10 AM
To: Dr. Sarmad Hussain
Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS'
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"

Thank you Dr. Sarmad!  I like this last edited draft and would be happy to have this published for public comment.
Lynn
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
From: "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad at cantab.net<mailto:sarmad at cantab.net>>
Date: Wed, March 02, 2011 4:55 am
To: "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, "'RT4 WHOIS'"
<rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Ok, though with minor wording adjustments; see below.



From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:21 PM
To: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"

Team:

As discussed during our call, here is the proposed bifurcated definition of "consumer" for inclusion in our call for comments. It has been chopped up a bit for readability, but I did endeavor to preserve the overall meaning.

I've also modified the "Feedback Requested" to be more open ended.

Thoughts / feeedback?  I'm off to bed now, but will check back in a few hours.

Thanks--

J.
_________________________________
In the global sense, "consumer" may mean:
 * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities,





And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and Whois Service may mean:


* Any consumer that acts as a  Producer of WHOIS data  (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service (e.g. Registrars), OR User of WHOIS data (e.g.    individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.).



Feedback request from community

Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition.  Is it too broad or too restrictive?  In either case, how should it be changed.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/02/11 00:34:00
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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/20110304/1c9c1e98/attachment.html 

From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Fri Mar  4 04:56:31 2011
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:56:31 +1100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <D8B6CCFAF2B890429C96F11B6E9CC7DC2EEE185D39@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
References: <20110302090931.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.c2a3319ae8.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<D8B6CCFAF2B890429C96F11B6E9CC7DC2EEE185D39@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302613D0F0@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hello again all,

I?ve just been looking on the review team?s public wiki, and noticed a few things that I think should be amended and discussed. I?m hesitant to put these changes into the wiki without the agreement of the review team as a whole.


1.       I see that the recently adopted definition of law enforcement has been added to the wiki. Thank you to Alice for that. However, I note that the page has a table that was not discussed, or agreed on, during our call. I would suggest that this table be removed, at least until the review team has had a chance to discuss it.



2.       I note that the applicable laws definition has not been updated since our call. Similarly, the definition of producers and maintainers. Can these now be updated with our agreed definitions?



3.       I have just noticed that the proposed ?consumer trust? survey is also on the wiki. I think that if we?re going to stakeholders on this, we should carefully consider the best way to do this. My view is that that open questions give stakeholders a better opportunity to put their views across and explain their thinking. For this reason, I raised concerns with the current closed and quantitative survey. I had thought that the review team agreed to discuss this further before its release. As it would be desirable to avoid confusing stakeholders with several different surveys, I suggest that the survey on the wiki be removed until the review team has a chance to substantively discuss it.



4.       I also note that there is a questionnaire hosted under the ?outreach plan? tab. I do recall some email traffic about this questionnaire, and I?m sorry if I missed this while I was on leave, but I do not recall the review team agreeing to it. I see that it has very detailed questions, and explicitly states that it is from ?the review team?. While I?m not opposed to the questionnaire as such (although I do have queries about some of the questions, and note that it uses old definitions etc), I would ask whether this is/was intended to be separate from the consumer trust survey? My point about multiple surveys (in point 3 above) would seem to apply here.


I am concerned about the process for posting documents on the wiki, particularly when they are posted in the name of the review team as a whole. Perhaps this could be briefly discussed in San Francisco?

Kind regards,

Peter




From: Nettlefold, Peter
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2011 9:40 AM
To: 'lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com'; Dr. Sarmad Hussain
Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS'
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi all,

Sorry for the slow reply, but I also think this is a good basis for our consultation.

I have two brief comments:


1.       I think we need an ?or? in the WHOIS consumer category list, rather than an ?and? (otherwise it would be a very high bar indeed to be considered to be a consumer).  I?ve made that change below in capitals so it stands out.



2.       I?m not sure what is meant by a ?provider?. I note that this isn?t a category we?ve used in the ?Producers and Maintainers? definition that we?ve agreed to go forward with. So, is there an example of a ?provider? that is not captured under the ?maintainer? definition? If so, do we need to revisit our ?Producers and Maintainers? definition?

Also, and just for the future, I think it was Kathy (?) that noted on our call that one sleeper in this formulation is the word ?legitimately? (and the inherent reference to its converse: ?illegitimate?). It will be interesting to see what the public comment returns on this, as this will be one (of the many) issues we will need to focus on in some detail going forward.

Cheers,

Peter

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:10 AM
To: Dr. Sarmad Hussain
Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS'
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"

Thank you Dr. Sarmad!  I like this last edited draft and would be happy to have this published for public comment.
Lynn
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
From: "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad at cantab.net<mailto:sarmad at cantab.net>>
Date: Wed, March 02, 2011 4:55 am
To: "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, "'RT4 WHOIS'"
<rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Ok, though with minor wording adjustments; see below.



From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:21 PM
To: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"

Team:

As discussed during our call, here is the proposed bifurcated definition of "consumer" for inclusion in our call for comments. It has been chopped up a bit for readability, but I did endeavor to preserve the overall meaning.

I've also modified the "Feedback Requested" to be more open ended.

Thoughts / feeedback?  I'm off to bed now, but will check back in a few hours.

Thanks--

J.
_________________________________
In the global sense, "consumer" may mean:
 * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities,



And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and Whois Service may mean:

* Any consumer that acts as a  Producer of WHOIS data  (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service (e.g. Registrars), OR User of WHOIS data (e.g.    individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.).


Feedback request from community

Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition.  Is it too broad or too restrictive?  In either case, how should it be changed.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/02/11 00:34:00
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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/20110304/37021b0f/attachment.html 

From sarmad at cantab.net  Fri Mar  4 05:09:10 2011
From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr. Sarmad Hussain)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:09:10 +0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302613D0F0@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
References: <20110302090931.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.c2a3319ae8.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<D8B6CCFAF2B890429C96F11B6E9CC7DC2EEE185D39@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
	<636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302613D0F0@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <004901cbda2a$4e8483a0$eb8d8ae0$@net>

Dear Peter and all,

 

With reference to Point 3 below on the survey, I do agree that we should also add a few open ended questions, in addition to the pointed questions at this time.  However, the specific questions should also be included.  The wording could be revised (and we need to revisit each question for that purpose), based on our discussions over next few weeks, but it may still be useful to get community feedback on the survey as it stands.  If we take this off line we  may not be able to get this feedback.  

 

We may add text saying that ?the current survey questions are tentative and will evolve based on Community feedback and further discussion by the WHOIS Review Team, before it is finally circulated to stakeholders.?  This way we get the feedback and the flexibility to review it in the future.  

 

However, I am happy to go along Peter?s suggestions and take the survey offline if that seems to be the best path forward.

 

Regards,
Sarmad  

 

From: Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au] 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 9:57 AM
To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com; Dr. Sarmad Hussain
Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS'
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Hello again all,

 

I?ve just been looking on the review team?s public wiki, and noticed a few things that I think should be amended and discussed. I?m hesitant to put these changes into the wiki without the agreement of the review team as a whole.

 

1.       I see that the recently adopted definition of law enforcement has been added to the wiki. Thank you to Alice for that. However, I note that the page has a table that was not discussed, or agreed on, during our call. I would suggest that this table be removed, at least until the review team has had a chance to discuss it.

 

2.       I note that the applicable laws definition has not been updated since our call. Similarly, the definition of producers and maintainers. Can these now be updated with our agreed definitions?

 

3.       I have just noticed that the proposed ?consumer trust? survey is also on the wiki. I think that if we?re going to stakeholders on this, we should carefully consider the best way to do this. My view is that that open questions give stakeholders a better opportunity to put their views across and explain their thinking. For this reason, I raised concerns with the current closed and quantitative survey. I had thought that the review team agreed to discuss this further before its release. As it would be desirable to avoid confusing stakeholders with several different surveys, I suggest that the survey on the wiki be removed until the review team has a chance to substantively discuss it.

 

4.       I also note that there is a questionnaire hosted under the ?outreach plan? tab. I do recall some email traffic about this questionnaire, and I?m sorry if I missed this while I was on leave, but I do not recall the review team agreeing to it. I see that it has very detailed questions, and explicitly states that it is from ?the review team?. While I?m not opposed to the questionnaire as such (although I do have queries about some of the questions, and note that it uses old definitions etc), I would ask whether this is/was intended to be separate from the consumer trust survey? My point about multiple surveys (in point 3 above) would seem to apply here.

 

I am concerned about the process for posting documents on the wiki, particularly when they are posted in the name of the review team as a whole. Perhaps this could be briefly discussed in San Francisco?

 

Kind regards,

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

From: Nettlefold, Peter 
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2011 9:40 AM
To: 'lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com'; Dr. Sarmad Hussain
Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS'
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Hi all, 

 

Sorry for the slow reply, but I also think this is a good basis for our consultation.

 

I have two brief comments:

 

1.       I think we need an ?or? in the WHOIS consumer category list, rather than an ?and? (otherwise it would be a very high bar indeed to be considered to be a consumer).  I?ve made that change below in capitals so it stands out.

 

2.       I?m not sure what is meant by a ?provider?. I note that this isn?t a category we?ve used in the ?Producers and Maintainers? definition that we?ve agreed to go forward with. So, is there an example of a ?provider? that is not captured under the ?maintainer? definition? If so, do we need to revisit our ?Producers and Maintainers? definition?

 

Also, and just for the future, I think it was Kathy (?) that noted on our call that one sleeper in this formulation is the word ?legitimately? (and the inherent reference to its converse: ?illegitimate?). It will be interesting to see what the public comment returns on this, as this will be one (of the many) issues we will need to focus on in some detail going forward.

 

Cheers,

 

Peter

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:10 AM
To: Dr. Sarmad Hussain
Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS'
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"

 

Thank you Dr. Sarmad!  I like this last edited draft and would be happy to have this published for public comment.

Lynn

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
From: "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" < <mailto:sarmad at cantab.net> sarmad at cantab.net>
Date: Wed, March 02, 2011 4:55 am
To: "'James M. Bladel'" < <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com> jbladel at godaddy.com>, "'RT4 WHOIS'"
< <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org> rt4-whois at icann.org>

Ok, though with minor wording adjustments; see below.

 

 

 

From:  <mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [ <mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:21 PM
To: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"

 

Team: 

 

As discussed during our call, here is the proposed bifurcated definition of "consumer" for inclusion in our call for comments. It has been chopped up a bit for readability, but I did endeavor to preserve the overall meaning.

 

I've also modified the "Feedback Requested" to be more open ended.

 

Thoughts / feeedback?  I'm off to bed now, but will check back in a few hours.

 

Thanks--

 

J.

_________________________________

In the global sense, "consumer" may mean:

 * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities,

 

And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and Whois Service may mean:

* Any consumer that acts as a  Producer of WHOIS data  (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service (e.g. Registrars), OR User of WHOIS data (e.g.    individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.).

 

Feedback request from community

 

Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition.  Is it too broad or too restrictive?  In either case, how should it be changed.

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -  <http://www.avg.com> www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/02/11 00:34:00


  _____  


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


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3479 - Release Date: 03/04/11 00:34:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110304/04409f5f/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Fri Mar  4 07:29:29 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 07:29:29 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302610512A@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
References: <20110302090931.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.c2a3319ae8.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302610512A@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <961C0017-9CAE-40AA-A947-BC7EE54FF18C@etlaw.co.uk>

Hi Peter 

I had just signed off the call to public comment last night my time!  However, if it has not already been published, Alice, please would you amend according to the tracked changes document attached.  Peter - good comments, thank you.  I think we can take in your comment about provider by decapitalising it, so that it's not a defined term, but describes an action, ie providing a WHOIS service.


E

On 3 Mar 2011, at 22:40, Nettlefold, Peter wrote:

> Hi all,
>  
> Sorry for the slow reply, but I also think this is a good basis for our consultation.
>  
> I have two brief comments:
>  
> 1.       I think we need an ?or? in the WHOIS consumer category list, rather than an ?and? (otherwise it would be a very high bar indeed to be considered to be a consumer).  I?ve made that change below in capitals so it stands out.
>  
> 2.       I?m not sure what is meant by a ?provider?. I note that this isn?t a category we?ve used in the ?Producers and Maintainers? definition that we?ve agreed to go forward with. So, is there an example of a ?provider? that is not captured under the ?maintainer? definition? If so, do we need to revisit our ?Producers and Maintainers? definition?
>  
> Also, and just for the future, I think it was Kathy (?) that noted on our call that one sleeper in this formulation is the word ?legitimately? (and the inherent reference to its converse: ?illegitimate?). It will be interesting to see what the public comment returns on this, as this will be one (of the many) issues we will need to focus on in some detail going forward.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Peter
>  
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Oflynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
> Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:10 AM
> To: Dr. Sarmad Hussain
> Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS'
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
>  
> Thank you Dr. Sarmad!  I like this last edited draft and would be happy to have this published for public comment.
> Lynn
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
> From: "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad at cantab.net>
> Date: Wed, March 02, 2011 4:55 am
> To: "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "'RT4 WHOIS'"
> <rt4-whois at icann.org>
> 
> Ok, though with minor wording adjustments; see below.
>  
>  
>  
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf OfJames M. Bladel
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: RT4 WHOIS
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
>  
> Team:
>  
> As discussed during our call, here is the proposed bifurcated definition of "consumer" for inclusion in our call for comments. It has been chopped up a bit for readability, but I did endeavor to preserve the overall meaning.
>  
> I've also modified the "Feedback Requested" to be more open ended.
>  
> Thoughts / feeedback?  I'm off to bed now, but will check back in a few hours.
>  
> Thanks--
>  
> J.
> _________________________________
> In the global sense, "consumer" may mean:
>  * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and Whois Service maymean:
> 
> 
> * Any consumer that acts as a  Producer of WHOIS data  (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service (e.g. Registrars), OR User of WHOIS data(e.g.    individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.).
> 
> 
> 
> Feedback request from community
>  
> Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition.  Is it too broad or too restrictive?  In either case, how should it be changed.
> 
> 
>  
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/02/11 00:34:00
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110304/7bf693a7/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: v2 WHOIS Policy Review Team - Call for Public Comments.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 150038 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110304/7bf693a7/v2WHOISPolicyReviewTeam-CallforPublicComments.docx 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110304/7bf693a7/attachment-0001.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Fri Mar  4 08:10:40 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 00:10:40 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Wiki now updated
In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302613D0F0@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <C9965CCF.4B7A%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Many thanks for your comments and feedback.
Rest assured that the sub teams web pages now contain the finalized definitions.
Regarding the questionnaire, I have taken the liberty to add a "draft" notice to the title and incorporated Doctor Hussain's introductory sentence.
The questionnaire in the outreach section has been removed for good measure pending your final decision.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have further questions or concerns.

Thanks,

Very best regards

Alice



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110304/dd171edb/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Fri Mar  4 08:23:18 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 00:23:18 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <961C0017-9CAE-40AA-A947-BC7EE54FF18C@etlaw.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C996608E.4B9F%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Hi Emily,

The announcement has not been posted yet and is currently in the hands of ICANN's Communication and web-admin team.

An updated version is now on its way.

Thanks,

Very best regards

Alice

From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:29:29 -0800
To: "Nettlefold, Peter" <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au<mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>>
Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS' <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>, "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad at cantab.net<mailto:sarmad at cantab.net>>
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Peter

I had just signed off the call to public comment last night my time!  However, if it has not already been published, Alice, please would you amend according to the tracked changes document attached.  Peter - good comments, thank you.  I think we can take in your comment about provider by decapitalising it, so that it's not a defined term, but describes an action, ie providing a WHOIS service.


E
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110304/231d8cb4/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Fri Mar  4 08:35:13 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:35:13 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <C996608E.4B9F%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <C996608E.4B9F%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <F79EAE18-906D-4F96-8E68-46125FCF179F@etlaw.co.uk>

Many thanks

Emily

On 4 Mar 2011, at 08:23, Alice Jansen wrote:

> Hi Emily,
> 
> The announcement has not been posted yet and is currently in the hands of ICANN's Communication and web-admin team.
> 
> An updated version is now on its way.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Very best regards
> 
> Alice
> 
> From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 23:29:29 -0800
> To: "Nettlefold, Peter" <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>
> Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS' <rt4-whois at icann.org>, "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad at cantab.net>
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> 
> Hi Peter 
> 
> I had just signed off the call to public comment last night my time!  However, if it has not already been published, Alice, please would you amend according to the tracked changes document attached.  Peter - good comments, thank you.  I think we can take in your comment about provider by decapitalising it, so that it's not a defined term, but describes an action, ie providing a WHOIS service.
> 
> 
> E


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/20110304/3b7db381/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Fri Mar  4 08:37:13 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:37:13 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302613D0F0@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
References: <20110302090931.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.c2a3319ae8.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<D8B6CCFAF2B890429C96F11B6E9CC7DC2EEE185D39@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
	<636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A302613D0F0@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <57C7397E-A373-4DC7-B13A-88D101BB7C61@etlaw.co.uk>

Hi Peter

Thanks for your comments.  As a general point, I agree that it's important for us to be vigilant about keeping the Wiki up to date.  On our last call, we decided that the issue of consumer trust needs more work.  The questionnaire could be moved to the work in progress section, and then it's clear to anyone outside the team who looks that it is not a finalised document. 

Kind regards

Emily

On 4 Mar 2011, at 04:56, Nettlefold, Peter wrote:

> Hello again all,
>  
> I?ve just been looking on the review team?s public wiki, and noticed a few things that I think should be amended and discussed. I?m hesitant to put these changes into the wiki without the agreement of the review team as a whole.
>  
> 1.       I see that the recently adopted definition of law enforcement has been added to the wiki. Thank you to Alice for that. However, I note that the page has a table that was not discussed, or agreed on, during our call. I would suggest that this table be removed, at least until the review team has had a chance to discuss it.
>  
> 2.       I note that the applicable laws definition has not been updated since our call. Similarly, the definition of producers and maintainers. Can these now be updated with our agreed definitions?
>  
> 3.       I have just noticed that the proposed ?consumer trust? survey is also on the wiki. I think that if we?re going to stakeholders on this, we should carefully consider the best way to do this. My view is that that open questions give stakeholders a better opportunity to put their views across and explain their thinking. For this reason, I raised concerns with the current closed and quantitative survey. I had thought that the review team agreed to discuss this further before its release. As it would be desirable to avoid confusing stakeholders with several different surveys, I suggest that the survey on the wiki be removed until the review team has a chance to substantively discuss it.
>  
> 4.       I also note that there is a questionnaire hosted under the ?outreach plan? tab. I do recall some email traffic about this questionnaire, and I?m sorry if I missed this while I was on leave, but I do not recall the review team agreeing to it. I see that it has very detailed questions, and explicitly states that it is from ?the review team?. While I?m not opposed to the questionnaire as such (although I do have queries about some of the questions, and note that it uses old definitions etc), I would ask whether this is/was intended to be separate from the consumer trust survey? My point about multiple surveys (in point 3 above) would seem to apply here.
>  
> I am concerned about the process for posting documents on the wiki, particularly when they are posted in the name of the review team as a whole. Perhaps this could be briefly discussed in San Francisco?
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Peter
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Nettlefold, Peter 
> Sent: Friday, 4 March 2011 9:40 AM
> To: 'lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com'; Dr. Sarmad Hussain
> Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS'
> Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> Sorry for the slow reply, but I also think this is a good basis for our consultation.
>  
> I have two brief comments:
>  
> 1.       I think we need an ?or? in the WHOIS consumer category list, rather than an ?and? (otherwise it would be a very high bar indeed to be considered to be a consumer).  I?ve made that change below in capitals so it stands out.
>  
> 2.       I?m not sure what is meant by a ?provider?. I note that this isn?t a category we?ve used in the ?Producers and Maintainers? definition that we?ve agreed to go forward with. So, is there an example of a ?provider? that is not captured under the ?maintainer? definition? If so, do we need to revisit our ?Producers and Maintainers? definition?
>  
> Also, and just for the future, I think it was Kathy (?) that noted on our call that one sleeper in this formulation is the word ?legitimately? (and the inherent reference to its converse: ?illegitimate?). It will be interesting to see what the public comment returns on this, as this will be one (of the many) issues we will need to focus on in some detail going forward.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Peter
>  
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Oflynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
> Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:10 AM
> To: Dr. Sarmad Hussain
> Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS'
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
>  
> Thank you Dr. Sarmad!  I like this last edited draft and would be happy to have this published for public comment.
> Lynn
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
> From: "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad at cantab.net>
> Date: Wed, March 02, 2011 4:55 am
> To: "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "'RT4 WHOIS'"
> <rt4-whois at icann.org>
> 
> Ok, though with minor wording adjustments; see below.
>  
>  
>  
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf OfJames M. Bladel
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: RT4 WHOIS
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
>  
> Team:
>  
> As discussed during our call, here is the proposed bifurcated definition of "consumer" for inclusion in our call for comments. It has been chopped up a bit for readability, but I did endeavor to preserve the overall meaning.
>  
> I've also modified the "Feedback Requested" to be more open ended.
>  
> Thoughts / feeedback?  I'm off to bed now, but will check back in a few hours.
>  
> Thanks--
>  
> J.
> _________________________________
> In the global sense, "consumer" may mean:
>  * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and Whois Service maymean:
> 
> 
> * Any consumer that acts as a  Producer of WHOIS data  (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service (e.g. Registrars), OR User of WHOIS data(e.g.    individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.).
> 
> 
> 
> Feedback request from community
>  
> Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition.  Is it too broad or too restrictive?  In either case, how should it be changed.
> 
> 
>  
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/02/11 00:34:00
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110304/dd4aee85/attachment.html 

From susank at fb.com  Fri Mar  4 23:51:24 2011
From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:51:24 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Definition of Consumer
Message-ID: <CAD6B3759A38A247AC29584C29147EA4053A58@SC-MBX02-3.TheFacebook.com>

Hello All,

I can appreciate the work that went into defining the term "consumer" in these two ways but I am adamant that we do not limit our definition of consumer to the use of WHOIS.

When we look at the term Consumer along with the term Trust we need to insure that we are looking at all internet users and not just  registrants and a small number of informed internet users.    These two groups are a small percentage  of the overall number of internet users.

If we send these two definitions out to the community for comment and they come back with the opinion that we should only use the WHOIS specific definition of consumer we will be limited in our work.

In the global sense, "consumer" may mean:
 * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities,




And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and Whois Service may mean:


* Any consumer that acts as a  Producer of WHOIS data  (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service (e.g. Registrars), OR User of WHOIS data (e.g.    individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.).




Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager

Facebook Inc.
1601 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA

Phone - 650 485-6064
Cell - 650 387 3904

Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.  Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110304/1e9edfb9/attachment.html 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Sat Mar  5 00:01:12 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:01:12 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Definition of Consumer
In-Reply-To: <CAD6B3759A38A247AC29584C29147EA4053A58@SC-MBX02-3.TheFacebook.com>
References: <CAD6B3759A38A247AC29584C29147EA4053A58@SC-MBX02-3.TheFacebook.com>
Message-ID: <2143118219-1299283554-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1452548667-@bda297.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I strongly agree with Susan and maintain that this view is consistent with paragraph 4 of the AOC which refers to "global Internet users" and "public interest". 
Lynn

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com>
Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:51:24 
To: 'RT4 WHOIS'<rt4-whois at icann.org>
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Definition of Consumer

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





From jbladel at godaddy.com  Sat Mar  5 00:21:54 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:21:54 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Definition of Consumer
Message-ID: <20110304172154.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.93edfb6d18.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110304/fc4485c8/attachment.html 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Sat Mar  5 00:34:30 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:34:30 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Definition of Consumer
In-Reply-To: <20110304172154.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.93edfb6d18.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20110304172154.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.93edfb6d18.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <1690310565-1299285552-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-330838591-@bda297.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Respectfully disagree- every Internet user is trusting that when they type in a domain name that it will route to the expected website.  This is directly relevant to ICANN.



Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:21:54 
To: 'RT4 WHOIS'<rt4-whois at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Definition of Consumer

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




From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Sat Mar  5 01:15:43 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:15:43 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Definition of Consumer
In-Reply-To: <1690310565-1299285552-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-330838591-@bda297.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <20110304172154.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.93edfb6d18.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
	<1690310565-1299285552-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-330838591-@bda297.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661CCB30DD6@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>

Lynn,

Well, and simply said. 

This is entirely relevant to ICANN. As a *public benefit* entity, there is an expectation that ICANN will in fact attempt to serve the public, not just those that have a direct (registrar/registry) or indirect (registrant) business relationship with them. As a team reviewing ICANN's policies, procedures, and implementations, we have an *obligation* to consider the public interest. I feel *very* strongly that public considerations far outweigh parochial interests.

If this isn't relevant to ICANN, then neither is WHOIS. Rather WHOIS belongs with those that consider it relevant; and please count me in that camp.

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 4:35 PM
> To: James M. Bladel; rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org; 'RT4 WHOIS'
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Definition of Consumer
> 
> Respectfully disagree- every Internet user is trusting that when they
> type in a domain name that it will route to the expected website.  This
> is directly relevant to ICANN.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org
> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:21:54
> To: 'RT4 WHOIS'<rt4-whois at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Definition of Consumer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 sarmad at cantab.net  Sat Mar  5 03:53:39 2011
From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 08:53:39 +0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- WHOIS Review Team - Call for
	Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <0fbe4f80d80a20d7aaa06860bb20974f@localhost.localdomain>
References: <0fbe4f80d80a20d7aaa06860bb20974f@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikoMaCbZ3Ghg1=u0nx0NGB_B2rSnPH0Rk-r7SzH@mail.gmail.com>

The definitions of Consumer, which we are working so hard on, seem to be
missing from this public call!

regards,
Sarmad



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ICANN News Alert <communications at icann.org>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 4:10 AM
Subject: ICANN News Alert -- WHOIS Review Team - Call for Public Comment
To: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk


  [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04mar11-en.htm
------------------------------
 WHOIS Review Team ? Call for Public Comment

4 March 2011

The WHOIS Policy Review
Team<https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team>was
launched in October 2010 in line with the Affirmation
of Commitments<http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm>(AoC)
provisions, section 9.3.1, which stipulates that:

 "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to
WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires 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. One year from the effective
date of this document and then no less frequently than every three years
thereafter, ICANN will organize 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."
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm

 The WHOIS policy Review Team (WHOIS RT) is composed of ten SO/AC
representatives, two independent experts, one Law Enforcement
representative, the ICANN President and CEO (Selector)'s designated nominee
and the Chair of the GAC (Selector)'s designated nominee. For full
reference, please consult:
http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/composition-4-en.htm

The WHOIS Review Team held its first formal face-to-face meeting in London,
January 2011, and agreed on a scope of work, road map, action plan and
outreach plan. We submit these materials to the Community for review, input
and comment.

Further, on the substantive issues, the WHOIS Review Team's first tasks have
been to define key terms from its 9.3.1 section of Affirmation of
Commitments scope.

The WHOIS Review Team would welcome *public
comment<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#whois-rt>
* on the following issues:

*What is a "consumer"?*

There is no single universally agreed definition of 'consumer', and legal
definitions in different jurisdictions vary widely. Some are narrow and
limited to 'natural persons', while others are broader and include various
types of organisations.

The WHOIS review team has been considering a broad interpretation of the
term 'consumer', as this would allow a broad range of perspectives to be
considered by the review team. This appears to be consistent with the
intention of the drafters of the AoC.

In the global sense, "consumer" may mean:

And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t.
WHOIS data and WHOIS Service may mean:

*Feedback request from community*

Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this
definition. Is it too broad or too restrictive? In either case, how should
it be changed?

   1.

   Scope of Work and Roadmap

   https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Scope+and+Roadmap+of+the+WHOIS+RT
    2.

   Outreach Plan
   https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Outreach+plan
    3.

   Action Plan
   https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+plan
    4.

   List of Key Definitions
    1.

      Law Enforcement:
      Law Enforcement shall be considered to be an entity authorized by a
      government and whose responsibilities include the maintenance,
      co-ordination, or enforcement of laws, multi-national treaty or
      government-imposed legal obligations.
       2.

      Applicable Laws:
      Includes any and all local and national laws that regulate and/or
      control the collection, use, access, and disclosure of personally
      identifiable information. It may also include other relevant legal
      obligations, including U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
      U.N. Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files.
       3.

      Producers and Maintainers of WHOIS Data:
       1.

         Producers: The individuals or organizations supplying contact data
         for inclusion into WHOIS data.
          2.

         Maintainers: The WHOIS Review Team proposes to subdivide this
         category in to:
          -

            Data Controllers: Individuals or organizations that define the
            data to be collected, require its release, and govern its
use. May or may
            not be directly involved in these functions.
             -

            Data Processors: Individuals or organizations engaged in the
            collection, storage, and release of data, according to the
terms defined by
            the Data Controller. They do -not- determine the nature or
use of the data
            that they collect or maintain.
               4.

      Consumer:
       - All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and
         non-commercial entities, government and academic entities.
       - Any consumer that acts as a Producer of WHOIS data (see above),
         Maintainer of WHOIS data and provider of WHOIS Service (e.g.
Registrars), or
         User of WHOIS data (e.g. individuals, commercial or
non-commercial entities
         who legitimately query the WHOIS data).

 The WHOIS Review Team also welcomes general comments on the above issues,
and any other issues which you would like us to consider at this early stage
in our work.

The ICANN San Francisco meeting takes place during our comment period and we
will be reaching out to the Community. The WHOIS Review Team will hold a
public session on Wednesday 16 February 2011 at 11 am ? 12 noon in the
Elizabethan A-C meeting room: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22173. We hold a
full day face-to-face meeting on Sunday, 13 March which is public and silent
observers are welcome to join us: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/21983.
Finally, we will be meeting with Supporting Organizations and Advisory
Committees in San Francisco and Singapore ICANN meetings (and to arrange a
meeting please contact Alice Jansen, alice.jansen at icann.org).

To find minutes of our meetings as well as documents and work in progress,
please check our public community wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team

Thank you for taking the time to consider these issues and documents. Your
participation is essential to the success of the review, and your
comments<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#whois-rt>will
be carefully considered.


 This message was sent to sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk from:

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

Email Marketing by [image: iContact - Try It
Free!]<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>
    Manage Your Subscription
<http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9827817&l=6333&s=KABZ&m=348239&c=165637>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110305/0eb2663c/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Sat Mar  5 09:31:17 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 09:31:17 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- WHOIS Review Team - Call
	for Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikoMaCbZ3Ghg1=u0nx0NGB_B2rSnPH0Rk-r7SzH@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0fbe4f80d80a20d7aaa06860bb20974f@localhost.localdomain>
	<AANLkTikoMaCbZ3Ghg1=u0nx0NGB_B2rSnPH0Rk-r7SzH@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9A187C60-2B92-4895-8F43-EE45939BBAE7@etlaw.co.uk>

Sarmad 

Thanks for pointing this out.  I don't know how it happened, as I'm sure the final draft had our revised drafts for consumers in it.

Kind regards

Emily

On 5 Mar 2011, at 03:53, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote:

> The definitions of Consumer, which we are working so hard on, seem to be missing from this public call!
> 
> regards,
> Sarmad
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: ICANN News Alert <communications at icann.org>
> Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 4:10 AM
> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- WHOIS Review Team - Call for Public Comment
> To: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk
> 
> 
> 
> News Alert
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04mar11-en.htm
> 
> WHOIS Review Team ? Call for Public Comment
> 4 March 2011
> The WHOIS Policy Review Team was launched in October 2010 in line with the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) provisions, section 9.3.1, which stipulates that:
> 
> "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires 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. One year from the effective date of this document and then no less frequently than every three years thereafter, ICANN will organize 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." http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
> 
> The WHOIS policy Review Team (WHOIS RT) is composed of ten SO/AC representatives, two independent experts, one Law Enforcement representative, the ICANN President and CEO (Selector)'s designated nominee and the Chair of the GAC (Selector)'s designated nominee. For full reference, please consult: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/composition-4-en.htm
> 
> The WHOIS Review Team held its first formal face-to-face meeting in London, January 2011, and agreed on a scope of work, road map, action plan and outreach plan. We submit these materials to the Community for review, input and comment.
> 
> Further, on the substantive issues, the WHOIS Review Team's first tasks have been to define key terms from its 9.3.1 section of Affirmation of Commitments scope.
> 
> The WHOIS Review Team would welcome public comment on the following issues:
> 
> What is a "consumer"?
> 
> There is no single universally agreed definition of 'consumer', and legal definitions in different jurisdictions vary widely. Some are narrow and limited to 'natural persons', while others are broader and include various types of organisations.
> 
> The WHOIS review team has been considering a broad interpretation of the term 'consumer', as this would allow a broad range of perspectives to be considered by the review team. This appears to be consistent with the intention of the drafters of the AoC.
> 
> In the global sense, "consumer" may mean:
> 
> And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and WHOIS Service may mean:
> 
> Feedback request from community
> 
> Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition. Is it too broad or too restrictive? In either case, how should it be changed?
> 
> Scope of Work and Roadmap
> https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Scope+and+Roadmap+of+the+WHOIS+RT
> 
> Outreach Plan
> https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Outreach+plan
> 
> Action Plan
> https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+plan
> 
> List of Key Definitions
> 
> Law Enforcement:
> Law Enforcement shall be considered to be an entity authorized by a government and whose responsibilities include the maintenance, co-ordination, or enforcement of laws, multi-national treaty or government-imposed legal obligations.
> 
> Applicable Laws:
> Includes any and all local and national laws that regulate and/or control the collection, use, access, and disclosure of personally identifiable information. It may also include other relevant legal obligations, including U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.N. Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files.
> 
> Producers and Maintainers of WHOIS Data:
> 
> Producers: The individuals or organizations supplying contact data for inclusion into WHOIS data.
> 
> Maintainers: The WHOIS Review Team proposes to subdivide this category in to:
> 
> Data Controllers: Individuals or organizations that define the data to be collected, require its release, and govern its use. May or may not be directly involved in these functions.
> 
> Data Processors: Individuals or organizations engaged in the collection, storage, and release of data, according to the terms defined by the Data Controller. They do -not- determine the nature or use of the data that they collect or maintain.
> 
> Consumer:
> 
> All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities.
> Any consumer that acts as a Producer of WHOIS data (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and provider of WHOIS Service (e.g. Registrars), or User of WHOIS data (e.g. individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data).
> The WHOIS Review Team also welcomes general comments on the above issues, and any other issues which you would like us to consider at this early stage in our work.
> 
> The ICANN San Francisco meeting takes place during our comment period and we will be reaching out to the Community. The WHOIS Review Team will hold a public session on Wednesday 16 February 2011 at 11 am ? 12 noon in the Elizabethan A-C meeting room: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22173. We hold a full day face-to-face meeting on Sunday, 13 March which is public and silent observers are welcome to join us: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/21983. Finally, we will be meeting with Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees in San Francisco and Singapore ICANN meetings (and to arrange a meeting please contact Alice Jansen, alice.jansen at icann.org).
> 
> To find minutes of our meetings as well as documents and work in progress, please check our public community wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to consider these issues and documents. Your participation is essential to the success of the review, and your comments will be carefully considered.
> 
> 
> 
> This message was sent to sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk from:
> ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601
> Email Marketing by 
> 
> Manage Your Subscription 				 								
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110305/128284bc/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Sat Mar  5 09:36:30 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 09:36:30 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
Message-ID: <EA0E28CF-087E-4F5C-8CB3-6D0883100FEB@etlaw.co.uk>

Hi Alice

Sarmad spotted an anomaly between the published version and the one that we asked to be published.  Please can you investigate and ensure that the correct version is published.  Thanks.  It doesn't have the lines wrt WHOIS data.... etc or the Feedback request from the community which asks about whether the definition is too broad or narrow.



People - I note the dialogue on the list regarding consumers, and the strong views on both sides.  Can I respectfully suggest that we continue with the public comment, which is not our final position, and asks for feedback on exactly this issue, and review where we are in the light of the comments received.  We will be revisiting the concepts of consumer and consumer trust at our next meeting.  I'm fully expecting us to start finding disagreements on these key issues, and am hopeful that with the benefit of further face to face discussion we will be able to find some formulations that we are more comfortable with.

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/20110305/60d257ea/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: v2 WHOIS Policy Review Team - Call for Public Comments.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 150038 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110305/60d257ea/v2WHOISPolicyReviewTeam-CallforPublicComments.docx 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110305/60d257ea/attachment-0001.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Sat Mar  5 09:39:15 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 01:39:15 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D2029DD9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Many thanks Emily. I am unsure what happened there and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. I will send the attached document to web admin right away and request a prompt update.
Thanks for your patience,
Best
Alice
Alice Jansen - ICANN
Sent via Blackberry

________________________________
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>
To: Alice Jansen
Cc: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois at icann.org>
Sent: Sat Mar 05 01:36:30 2011
Subject: Call for public comment

Hi Alice

Sarmad spotted an anomaly between the published version and the one that we asked to be published.  Please can you investigate and ensure that the correct version is published.  Thanks.  It doesn't have the lines wrt WHOIS data.... etc or the Feedback request from the community which asks about whether the definition is too broad or narrow.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110305/3fd8df62/attachment.html 

From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk  Sat Mar  5 10:21:53 2011
From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 10:21:53 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D2029DD9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D2029DD9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <B8EE29BC-751B-4247-AE14-252FD6EAF867@etlaw.co.uk>

Thanks Alice.  In my experience, this sort of thing often happens when there have been multiple edits, and I ask all members of the team to let us know as soon as possible if this version (which I believe incorporates the latest comments up until Friday evening my time) has the correct definitions.

I do note that there continues to be disagreement on the breadth of the definition of consumer.  Again, please let me know if you are unable to live with the version we are putting out to public comment.  If so, we could put in a sentence above the definitions to say 

"The definition of consumer presented here represents a rough consensus at this time. However, we ask the public to note that members of the Review Team have different perspectives on this definition, and in particular how broad or narrow it should be.  We ask for public feedback on this point (see question below)"

I hope this will satisfy and respect the differences of view expressed on the list, and provide a way forward for us.

So, to be clear, I am proposing to publish the paper attached as is.  If you would prefer to add this sentence, please let us agree to do so by midnight UTC on Sunday.

Kind regards

Emily


On 5 Mar 2011, at 09:39, Alice Jansen wrote:

> Many thanks Emily. I am unsure what happened there and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. I will send the attached document to web admin right away and request a prompt update.
> Thanks for your patience,
> Best
> Alice 
> Alice Jansen - ICANN 
> Sent via Blackberry
> 
> 
> From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk> 
> To: Alice Jansen 
> Cc: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois at icann.org> 
> Sent: Sat Mar 05 01:36:30 2011
> Subject: Call for public comment 
> 
> Hi Alice
> 
> Sarmad spotted an anomaly between the published version and the one that we asked to be published.  Please can you investigate and ensure that the correct version is published.  Thanks.  It doesn't have the lines wrt WHOIS data.... etc or the Feedback request from the community which asks about whether the definition is too broad or narrow.
> 


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/20110305/ad02d286/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: v2 WHOIS Policy Review Team - Call for Public Comments.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 150038 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110305/ad02d286/v2WHOISPolicyReviewTeam-CallforPublicComments.docx 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110305/ad02d286/attachment-0001.html 

From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Sat Mar  5 16:05:30 2011
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 09:05:30 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
In-Reply-To: <B8EE29BC-751B-4247-AE14-252FD6EAF867@etlaw.co.uk>
References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D2029DD9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<B8EE29BC-751B-4247-AE14-252FD6EAF867@etlaw.co.uk>
Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661CCBD05C0@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>

My sense from the call was that we had reached a compromise, allowing us to reach rough consensus by allowing two definitions of consumer. In the strict/narrow sense, a consumer (of WHOIS data) is one that uses it. So when we talk about a consumer of WHOIS data, I'm happy to have the narrow definition apply.

However, when we talk about "consumer trust" the broader definition *must* apply.

(my opinion)

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 2:22 AM
To: Alice Jansen
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment

Thanks Alice.  In my experience, this sort of thing often happens when there have been multiple edits, and I ask all members of the team to let us know as soon as possible if this version (which I believe incorporates the latest comments up until Friday evening my time) has the correct definitions.

I do note that there continues to be disagreement on the breadth of the definition of consumer.  Again, please let me know if you are unable to live with the version we are putting out to public comment.  If so, we could put in a sentence above the definitions to say

"The definition of consumer presented here represents a rough consensus at this time. However, we ask the public to note that members of the Review Team have different perspectives on this definition, and in particular how broad or narrow it should be.  We ask for public feedback on this point (see question below)"

I hope this will satisfy and respect the differences of view expressed on the list, and provide a way forward for us.

So, to be clear, I am proposing to publish the paper attached as is.  If you would prefer to add this sentence, please let us agree to do so by midnight UTC on Sunday.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110305/b72ba8e8/attachment.html 

From susank at fb.com  Sat Mar  5 18:05:30 2011
From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 18:05:30 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661CCBD05C0@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>
Message-ID: <CAD6B3759A38A247AC29584C29147EA4053C8D@SC-MBX02-3.TheFacebook.com>

I agree with Bill

From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 08:05 AM
To: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org <rt4-whois at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment

My sense from the call was that we had reached a compromise, allowing us to reach rough consensus by allowing two definitions of consumer. In the strict/narrow sense, a consumer (of WHOIS data) is one that uses it. So when we talk about a consumer of WHOIS data, I?m happy to have the narrow definition apply.

However, when we talk about ?consumer trust? the broader definition *must* apply.

(my opinion)

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 2:22 AM
To: Alice Jansen
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment

Thanks Alice.  In my experience, this sort of thing often happens when there have been multiple edits, and I ask all members of the team to let us know as soon as possible if this version (which I believe incorporates the latest comments up until Friday evening my time) has the correct definitions.

I do note that there continues to be disagreement on the breadth of the definition of consumer.  Again, please let me know if you are unable to live with the version we are putting out to public comment.  If so, we could put in a sentence above the definitions to say

"The definition of consumer presented here represents a rough consensus at this time. However, we ask the public to note that members of the Review Team have different perspectives on this definition, and in particular how broad or narrow it should be.  We ask for public feedback on this point (see question below)"

I hope this will satisfy and respect the differences of view expressed on the list, and provide a way forward for us.

So, to be clear, I am proposing to publish the paper attached as is.  If you would prefer to add this sentence, please let us agree to do so by midnight UTC on Sunday.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110305/0cfd8e5e/attachment.html 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Sat Mar  5 18:29:24 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 18:29:24 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661CCBD05C0@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>
References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D2029DD9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org><B8EE29BC-751B-4247-AE14-252FD6EAF867@etlaw.co.uk><39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661CCBD05C0@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com>
Message-ID: <405081437-1299350047-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1030175410-@bda297.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I can live with this,
Lynn
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>
Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 09:05:30 
To: Emily Taylor<emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>; Alice Jansen<alice.jansen at icann.org>
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org<rt4-whois at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment

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





From jbladel at godaddy.com  Sat Mar  5 18:59:46 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 11:59:46 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
Message-ID: <20110305115946.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.caaa8277a7.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110305/7622536b/attachment.html 

From kim at vonarx.ca  Sun Mar  6 14:15:27 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:15:27 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
In-Reply-To: <CAD6B3759A38A247AC29584C29147EA4053C8D@SC-MBX02-3.TheFacebook.com>
References: <CAD6B3759A38A247AC29584C29147EA4053C8D@SC-MBX02-3.TheFacebook.com>
Message-ID: <8ABC0BD5-B73F-435E-8E73-75CEFC35520C@vonarx.ca>

That was my understanding also. 

Kim 

__________________________________

kim at vonarx.ca
+1 (613) 286-4445

"Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."







On 5 Mar 2011, at 13:05, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

> I agree with Bill
>  
> From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 08:05 AM
> To: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org> 
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org <rt4-whois at icann.org> 
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment 
>  
> My sense from the call was that we had reached a compromise, allowing us to reach rough consensus by allowing two definitions of consumer. In the strict/narrow sense, a consumer (of WHOIS data) is one that uses it. So when we talk about a consumer of WHOIS data, I?m happy to have the narrow definition apply.
>  
> However, when we talk about ?consumer trust? the broader definition *must* apply.
>  
> (my opinion)
>  
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 2:22 AM
> To: Alice Jansen
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Call for public comment
>  
> Thanks Alice.  In my experience, this sort of thing often happens when there have been multiple edits, and I ask all members of the team to let us know as soon as possible if this version (which I believe incorporates the latest comments up until Friday evening my time) has the correct definitions.
>  
> I do note that there continues to be disagreement on the breadth of the definition of consumer.  Again, please let me know if you are unable to live with the version we are putting out to public comment.  If so, we could put in a sentence above the definitions to say 
>  
> "The definition of consumer presented here represents a rough consensus at this time. However, we ask the public to note that members of the Review Team have different perspectives on this definition, and in particular how broad or narrow it should be.  We ask for public feedback on this point (see question below)"
>  
> I hope this will satisfy and respect the differences of view expressed on the list, and provide a way forward for us.
>  
> So, to be clear, I am proposing to publish the paper attached as is.  If you would prefer to add this sentence, please let us agree to do so by midnight UTC on Sunday.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110306/f5252ac1/attachment.html