[Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Emily Taylor
emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk
Fri Mar 4 08:37:13 UTC 2011
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
More information about the Rt4-whois
mailing list