From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Tue Apr 5 16:50:28 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:50:28 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Message-ID: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. 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/20110405/86c44740/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Agenda060411.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 58779 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110405/86c44740/Agenda060411.docx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110405/86c44740/attachment-0001.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/20110405/86c44740/WHOISReviewTeamproposedReportOutline.docx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110405/86c44740/attachment-0002.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Issues paper or questionnaires ? Peter Nettlefold.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 216253 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110405/86c44740/IssuespaperorquestionnairesPeterNettlefold.docx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110405/86c44740/attachment-0003.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Tue Apr 5 17:53:40 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:53:40 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: [CG-CORE] ENC: [council] Research team announced for Whois Misuse study In-Reply-To: <008e01cbf3b5$91e44f00$b5aced00$@com.br> References: <008e01cbf3b5$91e44f00$b5aced00$@com.br> Message-ID: FYI De: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Liz Gasster Enviada em: ter?a-feira, 5 de abril de 2011 13:19 Para: council at gnso.icann.org Assunto: [council] Research team announced for Whois Misuse study All, the following has been posted at: http://blog.icann.org/ Thanks, Liz Cylab at Carnegie Mellon University selected to conduct study of Whois Misuse By Liz Gasster I am delighted to report that ICANN has engaged the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) of Pittsburgh, PA, USA, CyLab to conduct a set of Whois Misuse Studies. Working under the direction of principal investigator Dr. Nicolas Christin, this highly regarded cybercrime lab expects to spend approximately one year analyzing the extent, nature, and impact of harmful actions taken using Whois contact information. To accomplish this, the CMU team will survey gTLD domain Registrants about Whois misuse incidents they have experienced and use experiments to measure how well anti-harvesting measures reduce Whois misuse. Registries, Registrars, other cybercrime researchers, and law enforcement organizations will also be surveyed about reported cases of misuse. These complementary studies are expected to provide the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council with the empirical data needed to assess community concerns about misused Whois contact information and inform any resulting policy changes. ICANN looks forward to working with CMU to apply their cybercrime expertise and experience to this challenging topic. To learn more about Whois Misuse Studies or additional studies currently being considered by the GNSO, visit http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/index.html http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/index.html. To learn more about Dr. Christin and his work at the CMU CyLab, visit http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/nicolasc http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/nicolasc. From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Apr 5 18:24:57 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:24:57 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting In-Reply-To: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call. Comments and feedback are more than welcome. The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting Thank you, Very best regards Alice From: Emily Taylor > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 To: RT4 WHOIS > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110405/6909181f/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Prel Rep - SanFran Mtg - for approval.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 30599 bytes Desc: Prel Rep - SanFran Mtg - for approval.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110405/6909181f/PrelRep-SanFranMtg-forapproval.docx From omar at kaminski.adv.br Tue Apr 5 18:32:20 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:32:20 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting In-Reply-To: References: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: Dear RT Members and friends, My dad and mom are here for 9 days, my dad had a surgery scheduled for yesterday and it was delayed. Both are old-aged (77) and I need to assist them in many things. So I ask you my apologies for staying away for a while. Neverthless, I'll do my best to participate on the call tomorroy. Regards from .br, Omar 2011/4/5 Alice Jansen > Dear Review Team Members, > > Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco > meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call. > > Comments and feedback are more than welcome. > > The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for > your convenience: > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting > > Thank you, > > Very best regards > > Alice > > From: Emily Taylor > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 > To: RT4 WHOIS > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting > > Dear all > > I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on > discussions on the list. > > Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may > be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and > financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be > grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. > > I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has > continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on > progress, and a proposed way forward. > > I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report > outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so > far been little comment. > > Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter > has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through > (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a > session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? > > So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft > report outline. > > Kind regards > > Emily > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110405/53761744/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Apr 6 09:45:58 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 03:45:58 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting In-Reply-To: References: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B82512C-FBC4-48ED-A7D2-A37D6969AFFF@paypal.com> I'll send my regrets for this meeting. I'm in Geneva and have meetings starting at 07:30 Thu & Fri. If I've done the timezone math correctly, this call will start at 01:00 local time leaving little time for sleep. On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote: Dear RT Members and friends, My dad and mom are here for 9 days, my dad had a surgery scheduled for yesterday and it was delayed. Both are old-aged (77) and I need to assist them in many things. So I ask you my apologies for staying away for a while. Neverthless, I'll do my best to participate on the call tomorroy. Regards from .br, Omar 2011/4/5 Alice Jansen > Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call. Comments and feedback are more than welcome. The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting Thank you, Very best regards Alice From: Emily Taylor > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 To: RT4 WHOIS > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From kKleiman at pir.org Wed Apr 6 11:56:42 2011 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 07:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting In-Reply-To: <4B82512C-FBC4-48ED-A7D2-A37D6969AFFF@paypal.com> References: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> <4B82512C-FBC4-48ED-A7D2-A37D6969AFFF@paypal.com> Message-ID: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058941631C@pir-mail-01> All, I join Bill and Omar in sending my regrets for this meeting. My son's Bar Mitzvah is on Saturday, and we are in the throes of final preparation. Looking forward to hearing about the meeting, and best to everyone, Kathy -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 5:46 AM To: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting I'll send my regrets for this meeting. I'm in Geneva and have meetings starting at 07:30 Thu & Fri. If I've done the timezone math correctly, this call will start at 01:00 local time leaving little time for sleep. On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote: Dear RT Members and friends, My dad and mom are here for 9 days, my dad had a surgery scheduled for yesterday and it was delayed. Both are old-aged (77) and I need to assist them in many things. So I ask you my apologies for staying away for a while. Neverthless, I'll do my best to participate on the call tomorroy. Regards from .br, Omar 2011/4/5 Alice Jansen > Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call. Comments and feedback are more than welcome. The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting Thank you, Very best regards Alice From: Emily Taylor > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 To: RT4 WHOIS > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Apr 6 17:48:21 2011 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (LEMON, Sharon) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 18:48:21 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting In-Reply-To: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058941631C@pir-mail-01> Message-ID: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C6693083F@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -- Converted from text/plain format --> Hi All, I have spoken to Emily and I won't be there either - I have other on call responsibilities which make this too difficult. I am willing to take up and progress any taskings coming from the meeting. I would like to suggest that when we meet in Singapore that we strike out 2 days for another face to face on Whois, I found the meeting in London very useful and think it would be good to take stock again and plan for our last few months of the project. I hope you are all well and look forward to seeing you all again soon. Kathy - I hope the Bar Mitzvah goes well, big day. Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 06 April 2011 12:57 To: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting All, I join Bill and Omar in sending my regrets for this meeting. My son's Bar Mitzvah is on Saturday, and we are in the throes of final preparation. Looking forward to hearing about the meeting, and best to everyone, Kathy -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 5:46 AM To: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting I'll send my regrets for this meeting. I'm in Geneva and have meetings starting at 07:30 Thu & Fri. If I've done the timezone math correctly, this call will start at 01:00 local time leaving little time for sleep. On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote: Dear RT Members and friends, My dad and mom are here for 9 days, my dad had a surgery scheduled for yesterday and it was delayed. Both are old-aged (77) and I need to assist them in many things. So I ask you my apologies for staying away for a while. Neverthless, I'll do my best to participate on the call tomorroy. Regards from .br, Omar 2011/4/5 Alice Jansen > Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call. Comments and feedback are more than welcome. The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting Thank you, Very best regards Alice From: Emily Taylor > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 To: RT4 WHOIS > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 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. From kKleiman at pir.org Wed Apr 6 18:16:56 2011 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting - third task In-Reply-To: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> References: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B7527605894163E2@pir-mail-01> Hi All, In response to Emily's excellent agenda and outline, let me share that a third task, a narrow one, that I think should be added to the list. Per Emily's outline, Section 1: "We need to undertake two tasks now to complete this section: 1. identify "legitimate needs of law enforcement" 2. identify "what factors promote consumer trust in the context of WHOIS" I agree and add a third: 3. Identify "applicable laws." As presented at our Wednesday Public Forum session by a man at the microphone, and as defined in our applicable laws definition, there is a narrow set of laws that fall squarely within those the AoC is urging us to consider. As I reread ICANN Whois documents, including GAC Communiqu?s and GNSO reports over the years, there is as a repeating call across the years for ICANN to better know and review key data protection and privacy laws. This seems a fixed and narrow task - the type of short research project we projected to ICANN early on -- one for a professor and research assistant. It seems an appropriate compliment to the two areas above. Best, Kathy From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:50 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110406/0a9c3483/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Apr 6 19:33:42 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:33:42 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting In-Reply-To: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058941631C@pir-mail-01> References: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> <4B82512C-FBC4-48ED-A7D2-A37D6969AFFF@paypal.com> <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058941631C@pir-mail-01> Message-ID: <68BBDBBD-7EF5-4F7E-8CA1-37F852C222DB@paypal.com> Mazel tov! On Apr 6, 2011, at 4:56 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > All, > I join Bill and Omar in sending my regrets for this meeting. My son's Bar Mitzvah is on Saturday, and we are in the throes of final preparation. Looking forward to hearing about the meeting, and best to everyone, Kathy > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 5:46 AM > To: rt4-whois > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting > > I'll send my regrets for this meeting. I'm in Geneva and have meetings starting at 07:30 Thu & Fri. If I've done the timezone math correctly, this call will start at 01:00 local time leaving little time for sleep. > > On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote: > > Dear RT Members and friends, > > My dad and mom are here for 9 days, my dad had a surgery scheduled for yesterday and it was delayed. Both are old-aged (77) and I need to assist them in many things. > > So I ask you my apologies for staying away for a while. Neverthless, I'll do my best to participate on the call tomorroy. > > Regards from .br, > > Omar > > > 2011/4/5 Alice Jansen > > Dear Review Team Members, > > Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call. > > Comments and feedback are more than welcome. > > The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting > > Thank you, > > Very best regards > > Alice > > From: Emily Taylor > > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 > To: RT4 WHOIS > > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting > > Dear all > > I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. > > Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. > > I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. > > I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. > > Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? > > So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. > > Kind regards > > Emily > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Apr 6 20:07:19 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:07:19 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting - third task In-Reply-To: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B7527605894163E2@pir-mail-01> References: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B7527605894163E2@pir-mail-01> Message-ID: <4DACF7A0-9F33-42A0-B93B-D65B14228265@paypal.com> Kathy's note prompted me to reread Emily's outline. I'm uncomfortable with item 2) since it potentially limits our discussion of consumer trust to those that use (consume) WHOIS information. Both the wording of the AoC and our conversation with Larry Strickling strongly suggest that we consider "consumer trust" in very broad terms. On Apr 6, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi All, In response to Emily?s excellent agenda and outline, let me share that a third task, a narrow one, that I think should be added to the list. Per Emily?s outline, Section 1: ?We need to undertake two tasks now to complete this section: 1. identify ?legitimate needs of law enforcement? 2. identify ?what factors promote consumer trust in the context of WHOIS? I agree and add a third: 3. Identify ?applicable laws.? As presented at our Wednesday Public Forum session by a man at the microphone, and as defined in our applicable laws definition, there is a narrow set of laws that fall squarely within those the AoC is urging us to consider. As I reread ICANN Whois documents, including GAC Communiqu?s and GNSO reports over the years, there is as a repeating call across the years for ICANN to better know and review key data protection and privacy laws. This seems a fixed and narrow task - the type of short research project we projected to ICANN early on -- one for a professor and research assistant. It seems an appropriate compliment to the two areas above. Best, Kathy From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:50 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Wed Apr 6 20:24:42 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 21:24:42 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting - third task In-Reply-To: <4DACF7A0-9F33-42A0-B93B-D65B14228265@paypal.com> References: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B7527605894163E2@pir-mail-01> <4DACF7A0-9F33-42A0-B93B-D65B14228265@paypal.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill Thanks for this comment. Please can you clarify which bit you mean - is it the section headed "Consumer Trust" in the outline, or item 2 (headed, Identification and Inventory of existing Whois policy)? E On 6 Apr 2011, at 21:07, Smith, Bill wrote: > Kathy's note prompted me to reread Emily's outline. I'm uncomfortable with item 2) since it potentially limits our discussion of consumer trust to those that use (consume) WHOIS information. Both the wording of the AoC and our conversation with Larry Strickling strongly suggest that we consider "consumer trust" in very broad terms. > > On Apr 6, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Hi All, > In response to Emily?s excellent agenda and outline, let me share that a third task, a narrow one, that I think should be added to the list. > > Per Emily?s outline, Section 1: > > ?We need to undertake two tasks now to complete this section: > 1. identify ?legitimate needs of law enforcement? > 2. identify ?what factors promote consumer trust in the context of WHOIS? > > I agree and add a third: > 3. Identify ?applicable laws.? > > As presented at our Wednesday Public Forum session by a man at the microphone, and as defined in our applicable laws definition, there is a narrow set of laws that fall squarely within those the AoC is urging us to consider. As I reread ICANN Whois documents, including GAC Communiqu?s and GNSO reports over the years, there is as a repeating call across the years for ICANN to better know and review key data protection and privacy laws. > > This seems a fixed and narrow task - the type of short research project we projected to ICANN early on -- one for a professor and research assistant. It seems an appropriate compliment to the two areas above. > > Best, > Kathy > > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:50 PM > To: RT4 WHOIS > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting > > Dear all > > I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. > > Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. > > I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. > > I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. > > Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? > > So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. > > 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/20110406/e0e9864d/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Apr 6 20:43:57 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:43:57 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting - third task Message-ID: <20110406134357.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.140d2c60fc.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110406/31319fe3/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Apr 6 20:48:01 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:48:01 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting - third task In-Reply-To: <20110406134357.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.140d2c60fc.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20110406134357.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.140d2c60fc.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: I second that. Omar ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: 2011/4/6 Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting - third task To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: RT4 WHOIS My advice to this group is to focus on well established and accepted common principles in privacy law for purposes of the Whois Review. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110406/7a5eeafb/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Apr 6 23:28:53 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 16:28:53 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: GAC Principles [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3025A5EDDD@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: On 3/13/11 5:59 PM, "Nettlefold, Peter" wrote: >Hi all >GAC Principles attached. >Cheers >Peter > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- > > >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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAC whois principles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 78080 bytes Desc: GAC whois principles.pdf Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110406/3adeb0c5/GACwhoisprinciples.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110406/3adeb0c5/ATT00001.txt From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Apr 7 05:48:44 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:48:44 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting - third task In-Reply-To: References: <892515F5-F1A7-4EA9-8920-79722E18F792@etlaw.co.uk> <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B7527605894163E2@pir-mail-01> <4DACF7A0-9F33-42A0-B93B-D65B14228265@paypal.com> Message-ID: <652B2345-6E1B-42DF-BB1D-AC58AF0345DC@paypal.com> It's in the Definitions, Section 1. On Apr 6, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Emily Taylor wrote: Hi Bill Thanks for this comment. Please can you clarify which bit you mean - is it the section headed "Consumer Trust" in the outline, or item 2 (headed, Identification and Inventory of existing Whois policy)? E On 6 Apr 2011, at 21:07, Smith, Bill wrote: Kathy's note prompted me to reread Emily's outline. I'm uncomfortable with item 2) since it potentially limits our discussion of consumer trust to those that use (consume) WHOIS information. Both the wording of the AoC and our conversation with Larry Strickling strongly suggest that we consider "consumer trust" in very broad terms. On Apr 6, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi All, In response to Emily?s excellent agenda and outline, let me share that a third task, a narrow one, that I think should be added to the list. Per Emily?s outline, Section 1: ?We need to undertake two tasks now to complete this section: 1. identify ?legitimate needs of law enforcement? 2. identify ?what factors promote consumer trust in the context of WHOIS? I agree and add a third: 3. Identify ?applicable laws.? As presented at our Wednesday Public Forum session by a man at the microphone, and as defined in our applicable laws definition, there is a narrow set of laws that fall squarely within those the AoC is urging us to consider. As I reread ICANN Whois documents, including GAC Communiqu?s and GNSO reports over the years, there is as a repeating call across the years for ICANN to better know and review key data protection and privacy laws. This seems a fixed and narrow task - the type of short research project we projected to ICANN early on -- one for a professor and research assistant. It seems an appropriate compliment to the two areas above. Best, Kathy From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:50 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. 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 From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Apr 7 05:51:36 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:51:36 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting - third task In-Reply-To: <20110406134357.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.140d2c60fc.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20110406134357.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.140d2c60fc.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <38061D53-B988-425A-921F-5CE8C7EA34F9@paypal.com> +1 (and then we have laws below the national level to consider, e.g. in the US) On Apr 6, 2011, at 1:43 PM, > > wrote: I agree that the subject of applicable laws is critical to our course of work and that privacy laws are at the heart of getting the right balance with accountability of Whois data. But I would like to reiterate that the challenge we have regarding data protection and privacy laws is that over 90 countries now have some form of privacy law or government regulation. It is an emerging area of law with very few precedents, Court rulings or case law. On top of that, all these laws in different geographic jurisdictions are not harmonized. As a CIPP, Certified Information Privacy Professional, with the International Association of Privacy Professionals, I can tell you that it is a job just to be well read on all current privacy laws and keep up with new and changing privacy laws around the world. My advice to this group is to focus on well established and accepted common principles in privacy law for purposes of the Whois Review. One example is the UN Guidelines on Computerized Personal Data Files that has been mentioned previously. Other multi-lateral instruments that can be helpful to us are the APEC Privacy Framework and the EU Privacy Directive. Please note that an update to the EU Privacy Directive is currently in work and there is published information about the concepts that are being pursued in that update. On a different note, I saw the suggestion from Sharon that we plan 2 days face to face in Singapore and strongly agree that would be time well spent. Kind regards, Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting - third task From: Kathy Kleiman > Date: Wed, April 06, 2011 2:16 pm To: Emily Taylor >, RT4 WHOIS > Hi All, In response to Emily?s excellent agenda and outline, let me share that a third task, a narrow one, that I think should be added to the list. Per Emily?s outline, Section 1: ?We need to undertake two tasks now to complete this section: 1. identify ?legitimate needs of law enforcement? 2. identify ?what factors promote consumer trust in the context of WHOIS? I agree and add a third: 3. Identify ?applicable laws.? As presented at our Wednesday Public Forum session by a man at the microphone, and as defined in our applicable laws definition, there is a narrow set of laws that fall squarely within those the AoC is urging us to consider. As I reread ICANN Whois documents, including GAC Communiqu?s and GNSO reports over the years, there is as a repeating call across the years for ICANN to better know and review key data protection and privacy laws. This seems a fixed and narrow task - the type of short research project we projected to ICANN early on -- one for a professor and research assistant. It seems an appropriate compliment to the two areas above. Best, Kathy From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:50 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sat Apr 9 19:52:20 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 12:52:20 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] news about denial of service attack in Russia Message-ID: <20110409125220.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.6288fdad13.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110409/7358f68a/attachment.html