From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Tue Mar 22 12:25:26 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:25:26 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next steps - some ideas Message-ID: <4DEFA37B-94B7-44E8-97F4-FA8D2A596431@etlaw.co.uk> Hi everyone Thank you very much for making our time at ICANN San Francisco effective and rewarding. I think our teamwork is improving constantly, and I was impressed (and grateful) that so many team members attended so many of our outreach meetings, and contributed actively. I know that you all had multiple other things to do at the meeting, and believe that this investment will help us to develop a shared understanding of the way that different sections of the ICANN community think about the issues. I'm sure we'd also all like to recognise and thank the ICANN staff team for an excellent job in supporting our meetings, setting up meetings with multiple communities, and coping with ever changing powerpoint presentations. Thank you very much. To take the work on, and try to comply with our published work programme, I've put together a straw man for a report outline. Basically, I have been trying to make sense of the work we have done to date, and provide a context for all the activity we have undertaken so far. I'd like to discuss this on our next call. You will see that I believe we need professional help (don't we all?) in developing a "consumer trust" questionnaire and undertaking the research. We don't have the specialist skills or resources within the team to undertake this sort of research. I would welcome views on this. Kathy and I spent some time with Denise during the ICANN meeting, to discuss logistics going forward. Denise pointed out that if we plan to have external research (1) we need to get approval for a budget increase, and (2) we need to go through a tendering process of some kind - this will add time and require input/effort from us on the Review Team. I'm sure James can attest to that given his time on the ATRT. Another point is that, while we were in San Francisco, Bill, and I and others started to think about our work as the implementation subteam. After a useful informal conversation with members of the ICANN compliance team, and an informal chat with James (as a registrar), Bill offered to go and spend some time work shadowing the compliance team some time in May. I understand that James has also kindly offered to attend. Susan - your name as a west-coaster was also mentioned as someone who might be prepared to join this expedition. Thank you Bill, James (and maybe Susan) for offering to do this. I think it will give an invaluable insight into the work of the compliance team. So, please can you: 1. All - take a look at the attached 2 page report outline, and give feedback on this list 2. Law Enforcement subteam - please start to develop questions for law enforcement to identify the legitimate needs. I understand that you have started some thinking along these lines. 3. Consumer trust subteam - continue your work on a questionnaire for discussion with the full team at our next call. 4. Policy subteam - if you agree with the proposed outline, you could start a write up on the policy inventory. 5. Bill, James (?Susan) - agree a date for work shadow with the compliance team. Look forward to our heated discussions. 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/20110322/ab638961/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Review Team ? proposed Report Outline.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 116436 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110322/ab638961/WHOISReviewTeamproposedReportOutline.docx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110322/ab638961/attachment-0001.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Tue Mar 22 17:24:20 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [FWD: [bc-gnso] Knujon Internet Security Report] Message-ID: <20110322102420.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.e35cbfe78e.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Thanks, Lynn. I would caution the RT4 to take this (and other) WHOIS studies with a grain of salt. There are many agendas in the community, and not all studies take steps to neutralize any bias in the results. For example, in this particular case many registrars were aware of the study and chose not to respond, thus altering the resulting data and conclusions. Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rt4-whois] [FWD: [bc-gnso] Knujon Internet Security Report] From: Date: Thu, March 17, 2011 3:55 pm To: rt4-whois at icann.org Dear All, Forwarding a Report below because it includes points that are relevant to effectiveness of WHOIS policy implementation. Wishing everyone safe travels home after the conclusion of the meeting. Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [bc-gnso] Knujon Internet Security Report From: "Chris Chaplow" Date: Thu, March 17, 2011 3:36 am To: "'bc - GNSO list'" Dear Members, You may be interested to review the latest Knujon Internet Security Report. Chris Chaplow -------------------------- Chris, We have just issued a new report detailing abuse of the Domain Name System and Registrar contract compliance issues. It is available on our home page: http://www.knujon.com or directly at http://www.knujon.com/KnujOn_security_abuse_report_031411.pdf The report specifically discusses: 1. Registrars with current legal issues 2. Illicit Use of Privacy-Proxy WHOIS Registration (also detailed http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110310_proxy_privacy_user_higher_for_illicit _domains/) 3. A study on the contracted obligation for Bulk WHOIS Access 4. Policy Failures and Malware (also detailed here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100922_policy_failure_enables_mass_malware_p art_i_rx_partners_vipmeds/) 5. A study of where counterfeiters go to buy trademarked domain names 6. And an introduction to our new statistical methods for measuring Internet abuse. Please contact me with any questions, Garth Garth Bruen at Knujon.com [mailto:gbruen at knujon.com] _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From sarmad at cantab.net Tue Mar 22 18:41:22 2011 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:41:22 +0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next steps - some ideas In-Reply-To: <4DEFA37B-94B7-44E8-97F4-FA8D2A596431@etlaw.co.uk> References: <4DEFA37B-94B7-44E8-97F4-FA8D2A596431@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: Dear Emily and all, I would want to echo the thanks to the ICANN staff for the excellent support being provided. I would also want to thank Emily and Kathy for their tour-de-constituencies at ICANN SFO meeting, which required a lot of effort, and where the work we are doing was very impressively presented. Attending a few of these sessions, there seems to be confusion around WHOIS studies, and what specifically the RT is doing. This exercise helped clear this up with the community. Having a quick look at the document, I would suggest including a section on defining the WHOIS terminology (service, data, protocol) and, if others feel appropriate, a short section (or perhaps an appendix) on the WHOIS protocol. This would give an appropriate context to those not very familiar with WHOIS. Short reference to IRIS and Restful WHOIS may also be considered in this section, just to cover all bases, especially as we may need to refer to them in some of the potential recommendations, e.g. internationalized data, etc. We have Peter, Bill, Lynn, Olivier and myself on the Consumer/Consumer Trust team. If anybody else is interested to join the sub-team discussions, please let us know. regards, Sarmad On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Emily Taylor wrote: > Hi everyone > > Thank you very much for making our time at ICANN San Francisco effective > and rewarding. I think our teamwork is improving constantly, and I was > impressed (and grateful) that so many team members attended so many of our > outreach meetings, and contributed actively. I know that you all had > multiple other things to do at the meeting, and believe that this investment > will help us to develop a shared understanding of the way that different > sections of the ICANN community think about the issues. > > I'm sure we'd also all like to recognise and thank the ICANN staff team for > an excellent job in supporting our meetings, setting up meetings with > multiple communities, and coping with ever changing powerpoint > presentations. Thank you very much. > > To take the work on, and try to comply with our published work programme, > I've put together a straw man for a report outline. Basically, I have been > trying to make sense of the work we have done to date, and provide a context > for all the activity we have undertaken so far. I'd like to discuss this on > our next call. > > You will see that I believe we need professional help (don't we all?) in > developing a "consumer trust" questionnaire and undertaking the research. > We don't have the specialist skills or resources within the team to > undertake this sort of research. I would welcome views on this. > > Kathy and I spent some time with Denise during the ICANN meeting, to > discuss logistics going forward. Denise pointed out that if we plan to have > external research (1) we need to get approval for a budget increase, and (2) > we need to go through a tendering process of some kind - this will add time > and require input/effort from us on the Review Team. I'm sure James can > attest to that given his time on the ATRT. > > Another point is that, while we were in San Francisco, Bill, and I and > others started to think about our work as the implementation subteam. After > a useful informal conversation with members of the ICANN compliance team, > and an informal chat with James (as a registrar), Bill offered to go and > spend some time work shadowing the compliance team some time in May. I > understand that James has also kindly offered to attend. Susan - your name > as a west-coaster was also mentioned as someone who might be prepared to > join this expedition. > > Thank you Bill, James (and maybe Susan) for offering to do this. I think > it will give an invaluable insight into the work of the compliance team. > > So, please can you: > > 1. All - take a look at the attached 2 page report outline, and give > feedback on this list > 2. Law Enforcement subteam - please start to develop questions for law > enforcement to identify the legitimate needs. I understand that you have > started some thinking along these lines. > 3. Consumer trust subteam - continue your work on a questionnaire for > discussion with the full team at our next call. > 4. Policy subteam - if you agree with the proposed outline, you could start > a write up on the policy inventory. > 5. Bill, James (?Susan) - agree a date for work shadow with the compliance > team. > > > Look forward to our heated discussions. > > Kind regards > > > Emily > > [image: Emily Taylor Consultant (Internet Law and Governance)] > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > telephone: * 01865 582 811* mobile: * 07540 049 322* > emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110322/2ceb6395/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Tue Mar 22 20:08:02 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:08:02 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [FWD: [bc-gnso] Knujon Internet Security Report] Message-ID: <20110322130802.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.bba4ce08be.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110322/9d42fe05/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Tue Mar 22 20:13:39 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:13:39 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next steps - some ideas Message-ID: <20110322131339.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.786a8f37f2.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110322/4570a74f/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Wed Mar 23 09:08:57 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:08:57 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next steps - some ideas In-Reply-To: References: <4DEFA37B-94B7-44E8-97F4-FA8D2A596431@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: <148874A8-04DF-4AB8-BD06-318B6B87E9B4@etlaw.co.uk> Dear Sarmad Thank you for your generous comments. Like Lynn, I agree with what you say about defining our WHOIS terminology, and I believe that this should be relatively straightforward to do. I would be happy to join your sub-team discussions on this issue. Kind regards Emily On 22 Mar 2011, at 18:41, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: > Dear Emily and all, > > I would want to echo the thanks to the ICANN staff for the excellent support being provided. > > I would also want to thank Emily and Kathy for their tour-de-constituencies at ICANN SFO meeting, which required a lot of effort, and where the work we are doing was very impressively presented. Attending a few of these sessions, there seems to be confusion around WHOIS studies, and what specifically the RT is doing. This exercise helped clear this up with the community. > > Having a quick look at the document, I would suggest including a section on defining the WHOIS terminology (service, data, protocol) and, if others feel appropriate, a short section (or perhaps an appendix) on the WHOIS protocol. This would give an appropriate context to those not very familiar with WHOIS. Short reference to IRIS and Restful WHOIS may also be considered in this section, just to cover all bases, especially as we may need to refer to them in some of the potential recommendations, e.g. internationalized data, etc. > > We have Peter, Bill, Lynn, Olivier and myself on the Consumer/Consumer Trust team. If anybody else is interested to join the sub-team discussions, please let us know. > > > regards, > Sarmad > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Emily Taylor wrote: > Hi everyone > > Thank you very much for making our time at ICANN San Francisco effective and rewarding. I think our teamwork is improving constantly, and I was impressed (and grateful) that so many team members attended so many of our outreach meetings, and contributed actively. I know that you all had multiple other things to do at the meeting, and believe that this investment will help us to develop a shared understanding of the way that different sections of the ICANN community think about the issues. > > I'm sure we'd also all like to recognise and thank the ICANN staff team for an excellent job in supporting our meetings, setting up meetings with multiple communities, and coping with ever changing powerpoint presentations. Thank you very much. > > To take the work on, and try to comply with our published work programme, I've put together a straw man for a report outline. Basically, I have been trying to make sense of the work we have done to date, and provide a context for all the activity we have undertaken so far. I'd like to discuss this on our next call. > > You will see that I believe we need professional help (don't we all?) in developing a "consumer trust" questionnaire and undertaking the research. We don't have the specialist skills or resources within the team to undertake this sort of research. I would welcome views on this. > > Kathy and I spent some time with Denise during the ICANN meeting, to discuss logistics going forward. Denise pointed out that if we plan to have external research (1) we need to get approval for a budget increase, and (2) we need to go through a tendering process of some kind - this will add time and require input/effort from us on the Review Team. I'm sure James can attest to that given his time on the ATRT. > > Another point is that, while we were in San Francisco, Bill, and I and others started to think about our work as the implementation subteam. After a useful informal conversation with members of the ICANN compliance team, and an informal chat with James (as a registrar), Bill offered to go and spend some time work shadowing the compliance team some time in May. I understand that James has also kindly offered to attend. Susan - your name as a west-coaster was also mentioned as someone who might be prepared to join this expedition. > > Thank you Bill, James (and maybe Susan) for offering to do this. I think it will give an invaluable insight into the work of the compliance team. > > So, please can you: > > 1. All - take a look at the attached 2 page report outline, and give feedback on this list > 2. Law Enforcement subteam - please start to develop questions for law enforcement to identify the legitimate needs. I understand that you have started some thinking along these lines. > 3. Consumer trust subteam - continue your work on a questionnaire for discussion with the full team at our next call. > 4. Policy subteam - if you agree with the proposed outline, you could start a write up on the policy inventory. > 5. Bill, James (?Susan) - agree a date for work shadow with the compliance team. > > > Look forward to our heated discussions. > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110323/198412d1/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Wed Mar 23 09:12:29 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:12:29 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Implementation team call and our next call Message-ID: <04460D41-BAE2-45E4-B92B-B34D5FD9C073@etlaw.co.uk> Hi Alice Bill and I managed to meet briefly with James during ICANN to try and get some understanding of a registrar's experience of compliance. Understandably, Peter was only able to pop down for a very short time, and we agreed that the best way of taking this forward would be for you to set up a doodle for the Implementation Subteam and James, and for us to do the conversation by phone instead. Also, I should let you know that I will be unable to join our next call, scheduled for 2300 local time next Wednesday. Would it be possible for us to push this call off for a week, and do it the following Wednesday? 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/20110323/dbe1f7eb/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Mar 23 15:10:18 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:10:18 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Implementation team call and our next call In-Reply-To: <04460D41-BAE2-45E4-B92B-B34D5FD9C073@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Emily, This is to confirm that a doodle poll has been sent to the implementation team. Regarding the conference call, I am happy to run a doodle poll should you wish to keep the call scheduled for next week and am also happy to postpone it to the following week. I will wait for the Review Team's feedback before proceeding with either option. Thanks, Very best regards Alice From: Emily Taylor > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:12:29 -0700 To: Alice Jansen > Cc: RT4 WHOIS > Subject: Implementation team call and our next call Hi Alice Bill and I managed to meet briefly with James during ICANN to try and get some understanding of a registrar's experience of compliance. Understandably, Peter was only able to pop down for a very short time, and we agreed that the best way of taking this forward would be for you to set up a doodle for the Implementation Subteam and James, and for us to do the conversation by phone instead. Also, I should let you know that I will be unable to join our next call, scheduled for 2300 local time next Wednesday. Would it be possible for us to push this call off for a week, and do it the following Wednesday? Kind regards Emily [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/logo310.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110323/8453ffa2/attachment.html