From sarmad at cantab.net  Mon Apr 25 03:32:54 2011
From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr. Sarmad Hussain)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 08:32:54 +0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] If you do require travel support to attend the
	SGP	Mtg...
In-Reply-To: <C9D5D10A.708C%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <C9D5D090.7089%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<C9D5D10A.708C%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <003f01cc02f9$79f67910$6de36b30$@net>

Dear Alice,

 

Have not heard from BCD.  Sent in the dates to Matt (you were cc:ed).
Arriving on 18th June in Singapore.

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 3:19 PM
To: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] If you do require travel support to attend the SGP
Mtg...

 

 

This message is intended for those who confirmed that they would need travel
support to attend the Singapore meeting.

 

Dear Review Team Members,

 

By now, you should have received an email from ICANN Constituency Travel and
BCD.

If not, please email constituency-travel at icann.org as soon as possible
cc'ing me.

 

Thank you,

 

Very best regards

 

Alice

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3586 - Release Date: 04/20/11
23:34:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110425/63b6b1b9/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Mon Apr 25 06:45:05 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:45:05 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] If you do require travel support to attend the SGP
 Mtg...
In-Reply-To: <003f01cc02f9$79f67910$6de36b30$@net>
Message-ID: <C9DAE4A9.727A%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Sarmad,

Thanks for your notification. Rest assured that I have forwarded your request to ICANN Constituency Travel. I did receive your email on Saturday and trust that you will contacted by BCD as soon as the Easter weekend is over.

Thanks for your patience,

Very best regards

Alice

From: "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad at cantab.net<mailto:sarmad at cantab.net>>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:32:54 -0700
To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>, 'RT4 WHOIS' <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] If you do require travel support to attend the SGP Mtg...

Dear Alice,

Have not heard from BCD.  Sent in the dates to Matt (you were cc:ed).  Arriving on 18th June in Singapore.

Regards,
Sarmad

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: Thursday, April 21, 2011 3:19 PM
To: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] If you do require travel support to attend the SGP Mtg...


This message is intended for those who confirmed that they would need travel support to attend the Singapore meeting.

Dear Review Team Members,

By now, you should have received an email from ICANN Constituency Travel and BCD.
If not, please email constituency-travel at icann.org<mailto:constituency-travel at icann.org> as soon as possible cc'ing me.

Thank you,

Very best regards

Alice



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3586 - Release Date: 04/20/11 23:34:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110424/ed1865f9/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Mon Apr 25 12:15:36 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:15:36 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Please REVIEW - SGP Mtg - Draft schedule
Message-ID: <C9DB3288.7315%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached a draft schedule for Singapore.
Kindly note that this is the outcome of a coordination session Emily and Kathy had with Olof and I.

This will be discussed during the next conference call scheduled for this Wednesday  at 20:00 UTC. In the meantime please make sure to review the document and to circulate any feedback you may have.

Thank you,

Very best regards and Happy Easter to all!

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110425/447d9407/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SGP Meeting - Draft Schedule.doc
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 35840 bytes
Desc: SGP Meeting - Draft Schedule.doc
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110425/447d9407/SGPMeeting-DraftSchedule.doc 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Mon Apr 25 12:20:25 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:20:25 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Please REVIEW - Prel Report of our last confcall
Message-ID: <C9DB33A9.7327%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached the preliminary report of our last teleconference.

Kindly note that this will be discussed during our next conference call with a view to adopting a final version.

Thanks,

Very best regards

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110425/0eb31c87/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Prel Rep - .doc
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 46592 bytes
Desc: Prel Rep - .doc
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110425/0eb31c87/PrelRep-.doc 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Mon Apr 25 12:23:38 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:23:38 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - Next Call - Wed, 27 April 20:00 UTC
Message-ID: <C9DB346A.7331%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find enclosed the agenda of our next call scheduled for this upcoming Wednesday at 20:00 UTC.

 *   Adopt preliminary report of last conference call
 *   Review additional input on Peter's Issues document
 *   Review the budget proposal drafted by Susan, Lynn, Kim and Bill
 *   Update on the foreseen Singapore schedule circulated to the Team
 *   Discuss the draft Singapore agenda
 *   Report from Sharon and Peter on Law Enforcement
 *   Report from the implementation subteam on progress made
 *   Provide overview of the summary of public comments (staff) and discuss its use
 *   A.O.B

The agenda is also available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+09+-+27+Apr+2011
Agenda amendments/updates will be reflected on the wiki.

Thanks,

Very best regards

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110425/0c97849f/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Mon Apr 25 12:36:42 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:36:42 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] FOLLOW-UP v2: Please REVIEW - SGP Mtg - Draft schedule
In-Reply-To: <C9DB3288.7315%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <C9DB36CF.7337%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear all,

Please review the attached version (v2). We realized something was missing in the previous document?
Apologies for the inconvenience and thanks for your understanding,

Kindest regards

Alice
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:15:36 -0700
To: 'RT4 WHOIS' <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Cc: "SHEAN, Belinda" <belinda.shean at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:belinda.shean at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>>
Subject: Please REVIEW - SGP Mtg - Draft schedule

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached a draft schedule for Singapore.
Kindly note that this is the outcome of a coordination session Emily and Kathy had with Olof and I.

This will be discussed during the next conference call scheduled for this Wednesday  at 20:00 UTC. In the meantime please make sure to review the document and to circulate any feedback you may have.

Thank you,

Very best regards and Happy Easter to all!

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110425/aaedced5/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SGP Meeting - Draft Schedule - v2.doc
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 35328 bytes
Desc: SGP Meeting - Draft Schedule - v2.doc
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110425/aaedced5/SGPMeeting-DraftSchedule-v2.doc 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Apr 26 12:40:54 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:40:54 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Summary of Public Comments
Message-ID: <C9DC89F6.740A%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached a summary of the 18 public comments received in response to your request for input: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#whois-rt

The summary will be available online in the upcoming hours.

Kindly note that this will be discussed during the next conference call: "Provide overview of the summary of public comments (staff) and discuss its use"

Thanks,

Very best regards

Olof and Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110426/c1e773ad/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of comments - WHOIS- Final.doc
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 128512 bytes
Desc: Summary of comments - WHOIS- Final.doc
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110426/c1e773ad/Summaryofcomments-WHOIS-Final.doc 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Tue Apr 26 16:18:27 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:18:27 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Whois references in registrar and registry contracts
Message-ID: <BANLkTin4b7iYQDxCy68sjQvTTDogWgkABg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear James and Kathy,

Per the Team's request, attached is a compendium of "Whois contract
language" from the RAA and registry
contracts<http://www.icann.org/en/general/agreements.htm>.
ICANN staff erred on the side of completeness in cataloging references to
whois throughout the contracts, so the attached probably includes many items
in which the Team is not interested.  If the Team would like staff to
shorten this document further direction on what you are looking for would be
needed.

Please note that for Appendix 5 in many of the agreements staff provided a
link if there was a separate link to reference, as those are the "Whois
Specification" and are often quite long.

Please let me know if additional information is needed.

Regards,
Denise


Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110426/728ec8c7/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WHOIS-Reference-Summary.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 439296 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110426/728ec8c7/WHOIS-Reference-Summary.doc 

From kKleiman at pir.org  Tue Apr 26 17:04:54 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:04:54 -0400
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Whois references in registrar and registry contracts
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin4b7iYQDxCy68sjQvTTDogWgkABg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTin4b7iYQDxCy68sjQvTTDogWgkABg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058C7C5478@pir-mail-01>

Tx Denise, to you and everyone who worked on this document, for a very timely and complete response!
We look forward to delving into this document, and may have further questions.

Best,

Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org> |

Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG Blog<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.


From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:18 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Whois references in registrar and registry contracts

Dear James and Kathy,

Per the Team's request, attached is a compendium of "Whois contract language" from the RAA and registry contracts<http://www.icann.org/en/general/agreements.htm>. ICANN staff erred on the side of completeness in cataloging references to whois throughout the contracts, so the attached probably includes many items in which the Team is not interested.  If the Team would like staff to shorten this document further direction on what you are looking for would be needed.

Please note that for Appendix 5 in many of the agreements staff provided a link if there was a separate link to reference, as those are the "Whois Specification" and are often quite long.

Please let me know if additional information is needed.

Regards,
Denise


Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110426/b9174177/attachment.html 

From Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru  Tue Apr 26 18:32:08 2011
From: Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru (Yakushev Mikhail)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:32:08 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Whois references in registrar and registry contracts
In-Reply-To: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058C7C5478@pir-mail-01>
References: <BANLkTin4b7iYQDxCy68sjQvTTDogWgkABg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058C7C5478@pir-mail-01>
Message-ID: <7C0268D000FB534D8BEDFAD61C5E72A812A26F@OWA.mazal.ru>

Dear Colleagues,
I do agree with Kathy, and would like to thank Denise and everyone.
Unfortunately, I have to apologize for either being late at today's call, or to be unable to join it at all. I will be travelling to Moscow this night, and I am not sure I will arrive on time.
Kind regards,
Michael

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:05 PM
To: denise.michel at icann.org; rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Whois references in registrar and registry contracts

Tx Denise, to you and everyone who worked on this document, for a very timely and complete response!
We look forward to delving into this document, and may have further questions.

Best,

Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org> |

Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG Blog<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.


From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:18 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Whois references in registrar and registry contracts

Dear James and Kathy,

Per the Team's request, attached is a compendium of "Whois contract language" from the RAA and registry contracts<http://www.icann.org/en/general/agreements.htm>. ICANN staff erred on the side of completeness in cataloging references to whois throughout the contracts, so the attached probably includes many items in which the Team is not interested.  If the Team would like staff to shorten this document further direction on what you are looking for would be needed.

Please note that for Appendix 5 in many of the agreements staff provided a link if there was a separate link to reference, as those are the "Whois Specification" and are often quite long.

Please let me know if additional information is needed.

Regards,
Denise


Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110426/9ecf1247/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Apr 26 19:02:04 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:02:04 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Whois references in registrar and registry contracts
In-Reply-To: <7C0268D000FB534D8BEDFAD61C5E72A812A26F@OWA.mazal.ru>
Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D2029E20@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Hi Michael,
The call is scheduled for tomorrow - 20:00 UTC.
Safe travels!
Best Alice
Alice Jansen - ICANN
Sent via Blackberry

From: Yakushev Mikhail [mailto:Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 11:32 AM
To: 'Kathy Kleiman' <kKleiman at pir.org>; Denise Michel; rt4-whois at icann.org <rt4-whois at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Whois references in registrar and registry contracts

Dear Colleagues,
I do agree with Kathy, and would like to thank Denise and everyone.
Unfortunately, I have to apologize for either being late at today?s call, or to be unable to join it at all. I will be travelling to Moscow this night, and I am not sure I will arrive on time.
Kind regards,
Michael

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:05 PM
To: denise.michel at icann.org; rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Whois references in registrar and registry contracts

Tx Denise, to you and everyone who worked on this document, for a very timely and complete response!
We look forward to delving into this document, and may have further questions.

Best,

Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org> |

Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG Blog<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.


From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:18 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Whois references in registrar and registry contracts

Dear James and Kathy,

Per the Team's request, attached is a compendium of "Whois contract language" from the RAA and registry contracts<http://www.icann.org/en/general/agreements.htm>. ICANN staff erred on the side of completeness in cataloging references to whois throughout the contracts, so the attached probably includes many items in which the Team is not interested.  If the Team would like staff to shorten this document further direction on what you are looking for would be needed.

Please note that for Appendix 5 in many of the agreements staff provided a link if there was a separate link to reference, as those are the "Whois Specification" and are often quite long.

Please let me know if additional information is needed.

Regards,
Denise


Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110426/4debb0d1/attachment.html 

From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Wed Apr 27 03:10:19 2011
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:10:19 +1000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] FOLLOW-UP v2: Please REVIEW - SGP Mtg - Draft
	schedule [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <C9DB36CF.7337%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <C9DB3288.7315%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<C9DB36CF.7337%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3028848801@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hello all,

Thanks very much to all involved in preparing this.

I have one question, and a request:


?       Do the references to a DNS abuse session and possible meeting with law enforcement representatives on the Monday relate to our discussions on how best to interact with law enforcement, or is this something new/different?



?       The internal debriefing/wrap-up that has been scheduled for Wednesday afternoon will clash with the time usually set aside for drafting of the GAC communiqu?, so I would ask if this could perhaps be moved to an alternate time?

Cheers,

Peter

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Monday, 25 April 2011 10:37 PM
To: 'RT4 WHOIS'
Cc: SHEAN, Belinda
Subject: [Rt4-whois] FOLLOW-UP v2: Please REVIEW - SGP Mtg - Draft schedule
Importance: High

Dear all,

Please review the attached version (v2). We realized something was missing in the previous document...
Apologies for the inconvenience and thanks for your understanding,

Kindest regards

Alice
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:15:36 -0700
To: 'RT4 WHOIS' <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Cc: "SHEAN, Belinda" <belinda.shean at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:belinda.shean at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>>
Subject: Please REVIEW - SGP Mtg - Draft schedule

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached a draft schedule for Singapore.
Kindly note that this is the outcome of a coordination session Emily and Kathy had with Olof and I.

This will be discussed during the next conference call scheduled for this Wednesday  at 20:00 UTC. In the meantime please make sure to review the document and to circulate any feedback you may have.

Thank you,

Very best regards and Happy Easter to all!

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/20110427/15d1d37c/attachment.html 

From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Wed Apr 27 05:06:25 2011
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:06:25 +1000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Please REVIEW - Prel Report of our last confcall
	[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A30288489CC@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hello all,
I have inserted a couple of minor comments in revision mode.
Cheers,
Peter

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Monday, 25 April 2011 10:20 PM
To: 'RT4 WHOIS'
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Please REVIEW - Prel Report of our last confcall

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached the preliminary report of our last teleconference.

Kindly note that this will be discussed during our next conference call with a view to adopting a final version.

Thanks,

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/20110427/664a4e85/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Prel Rep - .doc
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 47616 bytes
Desc: Prel Rep - .doc
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110427/664a4e85/PrelRep-.doc 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110427/664a4e85/ATT00001.txt 

From kim at vonarx.ca  Wed Apr 27 05:43:12 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:43:12 -0400
Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Please REVIEW - Prel Report of our last
	confcall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A30288489CC@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A30288489CC@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <F5DEEAB9-B2A7-4EEA-8B29-4CB89C2BA327@vonarx.ca>

Hi All,

I have to apologies but I think I might not be able to make call tmw. 

Kim

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

On 2011-04-27, at 1:06, "Nettlefold, Peter" <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au> wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> I have inserted a couple of minor comments in revision mode.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Peter
> 
>  
> 
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
> Sent: Monday, 25 April 2011 10:20 PM
> To: 'RT4 WHOIS'
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Please REVIEW - Prel Report of our last confcall
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Review Team Members,
> 
>  
> 
> Please find attached the preliminary report of our last teleconference.
> 
>  
> 
> Kindly note that this will be discussed during our next conference call with a view to adopting a final version.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <Prel Rep - .doc>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110427/4c316aa1/attachment.html 

From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Wed Apr 27 07:18:41 2011
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:18:41 +1000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Please REVIEW - Prel Report of our last
	confcall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <F5DEEAB9-B2A7-4EEA-8B29-4CB89C2BA327@vonarx.ca>
References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A30288489CC@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
	<F5DEEAB9-B2A7-4EEA-8B29-4CB89C2BA327@vonarx.ca>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3028848BDC@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hi all,

I will also be unable to attend this call, but wanted to note that earlier today (my time) I sent some minor comments to the review team list on the proposed Singapore agenda and on the record of the last meeting. I hope these will be helpful.

I look forward to listening to the recording once its available.

Cheers,

Peter

From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 April 2011 3:43 PM
To: Nettlefold, Peter
Cc: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Please REVIEW - Prel Report of our last confcall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi All,

I have to apologies but I think I might not be able to make call tmw.

Kim

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

On 2011-04-27, at 1:06, "Nettlefold, Peter" <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au<mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>> wrote:
Hello all,
I have inserted a couple of minor comments in revision mode.
Cheers,
Peter

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: Monday, 25 April 2011 10:20 PM
To: 'RT4 WHOIS'
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Please REVIEW - Prel Report of our last confcall

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached the preliminary report of our last teleconference.

Kindly note that this will be discussed during our next conference call with a view to adopting a final version.

Thanks,

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Prel Rep - .doc>
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________
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/20110427/1911516e/attachment.html 

From kKleiman at pir.org  Wed Apr 27 18:01:30 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:01:30 -0400
Subject: [Rt4-whois] FOLLOW-UP v2: Please REVIEW - SGP Mtg -
	Draft	schedule [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3028848801@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
References: <C9DB3288.7315%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<C9DB36CF.7337%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3028848801@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058C7C558E@pir-mail-01>

Peter,
We definitely don't want to conflict with the drafting of the GAC communiqu?.  We were trying to find a time in late afternoon and before the Gala (which will be that night) for a debrief/next steps session. Is there anything in that window that might be possible?

Best regards,


Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org> |

Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG Blog<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.


From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 11:10 PM
To: Alice Jansen; 'RT4 WHOIS'
Cc: SHEAN, Belinda
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FOLLOW-UP v2: Please REVIEW - SGP Mtg - Draft schedule [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hello all,

Thanks very much to all involved in preparing this.

I have one question, and a request:


?         Do the references to a DNS abuse session and possible meeting with law enforcement representatives on the Monday relate to our discussions on how best to interact with law enforcement, or is this something new/different?



?         The internal debriefing/wrap-up that has been scheduled for Wednesday afternoon will clash with the time usually set aside for drafting of the GAC communiqu?, so I would ask if this could perhaps be moved to an alternate time?

Cheers,

Peter

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
Sent: Monday, 25 April 2011 10:37 PM
To: 'RT4 WHOIS'
Cc: SHEAN, Belinda
Subject: [Rt4-whois] FOLLOW-UP v2: Please REVIEW - SGP Mtg - Draft schedule
Importance: High

Dear all,

Please review the attached version (v2). We realized something was missing in the previous document...
Apologies for the inconvenience and thanks for your understanding,

Kindest regards

Alice
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:15:36 -0700
To: 'RT4 WHOIS' <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Cc: "SHEAN, Belinda" <belinda.shean at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:belinda.shean at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>>
Subject: Please REVIEW - SGP Mtg - Draft schedule

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached a draft schedule for Singapore.
Kindly note that this is the outcome of a coordination session Emily and Kathy had with Olof and I.

This will be discussed during the next conference call scheduled for this Wednesday  at 20:00 UTC. In the meantime please make sure to review the document and to circulate any feedback you may have.

Thank you,

Very best regards and Happy Easter to all!

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/20110427/35a56576/attachment.html 

From kKleiman at pir.org  Wed Apr 27 19:30:22 2011
From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:30:22 -0400
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request - concern and
 suggestion
In-Reply-To: <20110422120748.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.f5120a3b06.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
References: <20110422120748.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.f5120a3b06.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058C7C55B6@pir-mail-01>

Dear Lynn,
Thank you for circulating this draft budget, and thanks to you, Bill, Kim and Susan for all of the work on it.  It is an excellent and important step forward.

That said, I wanted to raise concerns about its breadth and objections I expect we will receive from some on the Board and the GNSO. I hope we can discuss this issue this evening.

What concerns me is the language of the Budget Request that says we will be surveying people who have no awareness of ICANN.  What that seems to imply is that we are surveying people with no touchpoint at all to ownership of domain names or use of the Whois system.*[text below]

I think that will be a problem for the ICANN Community for a number of reasons, including:

1)      The Board has send the general ?consumer? issue of the AoC to the GNSO Council for definition and deliberation.  With that process still in progress, I think the Board would be reluctant to have us (the WRT) step-in in a broad manner.  This is now a GNSO definitional issue, and not one I think we should intrude upon. The scope will ultimately decided by the GNSO.



2)      I fear that reaching out to  a group with no awareness of Internet processes means that they will be heavily shaped by what we say, and how we say it, as they have no thoughts or exposure to our Whois system or domain name data otherwise.  I would strongly prefer we work with those consumer who have some experience with domain name registration and/or the Whois system. It is a very large group, yet one that is arguably within the bounds of consumer, and within both the bounds of the broad and narrow ?consumer? definitions we put out for public comment.


3)      The Study, as envisioned, can be interpreted as the Whois Review Team making policy, rather than reflecting it.  Let me explain the objection I think might be raised.  If we survey everyone, regardless of their knowledge of the domain name system, the Whois or ICANN, then we are implicitly submitting a theory of Whois as a global validation and verification tool for all websites.  The purpose of Whois, however, remains an issue in which the GNSO and ICANN Community are at odds. In fact, as we reminded by the active intervention of Eliot Noss, founder of ENom, in the Registrar Stakeholder Group during our WRT meeting there, the GNSO very nearly converged on agreement that Whois should be an ?operational point of contact? replacing all existing Whois data.  That was a process that took place a few years ago, and got voted down, he told us, only in the final vote.



Eliot point out that there was near-consensus on this narrow ?purpose? of the Whois ? an operational point of contact close to the ?technical point of contact? which many judge to be the early and original purpose of Whois (as shared by early DARPA users).   The larger vision of Whois? use and purpose, as currently encompassed by this proposed study, is one that may cast us (in the minds of some) as the WRT making policy, rather than merely reviewing it.

That said, I think the Subteam has captured something important ? and provided we limit the scope of outreach somewhat, namely to people who know have registered domain names, or hope to, and to those who know the Whois system and use it --  I think we are well within the scope of the AoC (however you interpret it), and not stepping on any policy toes.

That?s still massive group!   Thanks for the opportunity to comment and look forward to talking more tonight.

All the best,
Kathy

*?We believe that the vast majority of Internet users have little or no awareness of ICANN, its processes, or the function it serves. However, it is this group that also must be polled to determine to what level they trust the Internet and specifically ICANN?s role in establishing that trust.? BUDGET REQUEST DRAFT


Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org> |

Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG Blog<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.


From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 3:08 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request

Dear All,
Bill, Kim, Susan and I have collaborated on the attached proposed draft of a budget request to
submit to the ICANN Board.

The justification and rationale for the request is included in the draft.   Please review at your earliest convenience so that we can finalize agreement and move forward.

Also attached for reference is a copy of the updated ICANN Strategic Plan which provides additional reinforcement for the proposed external study.

Best regards,
Lynn






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110427/86e03646/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Wed Apr 27 19:45:14 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:45:14 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] ConfCall today at 20:00 UTC
Message-ID: <C9DE3EEA.7511%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Please join the Adobe room:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/

Password: 27318 followed by #


Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+09+-+27+Apr+2011

Audio-cast (silent observers): http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u

Dial-in numbers:
Please find below a table which encapsulates dial-in numbers for your countries of residence.
Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list which is available at:  http://www.adigo.com/icann/

Australia       1 800 009 820
1 800 036 775
Sydney  T       +61 290372962
Melbourne       T       +61 399996500
Brisbane        T       +61 731777546

Austria L - 0 800 295 858
M - 0 800 295 138
T - +43 720 882 638

Belgium L - 0800 79210
M ? 0800 79218
T - +32 78 480 286

Brazil  L - 0800 891 1597
M - 0800 891 1598
T - +55 613 717 2040

Canada  1 800 550 6865
T - +1 213 233 3193

France  0800 90 25 56
T - +33 170618347

Germany L -  0800 1016 120
G - M 0800 1016 124

Russia  8 10 8002 535 3011
T - +7 499 650 7835
United Kingdom  0800 032 6646
T  - +44 207 099 0867

United States   1 800 550 6865
T  - +1 213 233 3193


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110427/7290cd31/attachment.html 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Wed Apr 27 20:22:11 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:22:11 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request - concern and
	suggestion
In-Reply-To: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058C7C55B6@pir-mail-01>
References: <20110422120748.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.f5120a3b06.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058C7C55B6@pir-mail-01>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin_BnHMpPeqvDbjCfY22pU=U_7eqQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Team members:

For the benefit of those Team members who might not be aware of actions
referenced in Kathy's email, I've provided some additional information on
point #1 below

1)     The Board has send the general ?consumer? issue of the AoC to the
> GNSO Council for definition and deliberation.  With that process still in
> progress, I think the Board would be reluctant to have us (the WRT) step-in
> in a broad manner.  This is now a GNSO definitional issue, and not one I
> think we should intrude upon. The scope will ultimately decided by the GNSO.
>
>
The Board actually was focusing on work related to the 4th AoC review on new
gTLDs and their impact on consumer choice, competition, etc. in asking for
input from the GNSO and other groups. They took the following action, which
certainly may have implications for Whois:

Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation

Whereas, the area of consumer choice, competition and innovation is one of
the strategic areas for ICANN in the 2010 to 2013 strategy plan <
http://www.icann.org/en/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-2010-2013-19feb10-en.pdf>
[PDF, 491 KB].

Whereas, ICANN has committed to promoting competition, consumer trust and
consumer choice in the Affirmation of Commitments <
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm
>.

Whereas, if and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character
sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN has committed to organize a
review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion
of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice.

Resolved (2010.12.10.30), the ICANN Board requests advice from the ALAC,
GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year
targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer
choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided
for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco
from 13-18 March 2011.


Also, the Board has indicated its commitment to supporting the independence
of the AoC review teams and declined to dictate scope or direction to the
ATRT. I would expecte the same for the Whois review, but I encourage the
Team to contact the Board if you have any questions on this.

Regards,
Denise
Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110427/a233468c/attachment.html 

From lutz at iks-jena.de  Thu Apr 28 20:22:30 2011
From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:22:30 +0200
Subject: [Rt4-whois] ConfCall today at 20:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <C9DE3EEA.7511%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <C9DE3EEA.7511%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <20110428202230.GA11462@belenus.iks-jena.de>

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:45:14PM -0700, Alice Jansen wrote:
> Dial-in numbers:

Sorry, I was in Berlin (emergency customer problem) yesterday and forget to
remember myself to this confcall. I assumed the call to happen today and
called without success.

Sorry again.


From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Thu Apr 28 21:16:43 2011
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:16:43 -0300
Subject: [Rt4-whois] ConfCall today at 20:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <20110428202230.GA11462@belenus.iks-jena.de>
References: <C9DE3EEA.7511%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<20110428202230.GA11462@belenus.iks-jena.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimHXBV7yS+6NafEWe1n219ib8Pgyg@mail.gmail.com>

Me too, I'm on a very busy period after a couple of weeks taking care
of my parents.

I'll keep doing what I can to stay in touch with the discussions and
arising issues.

All the best,

Omar



2011/4/28 Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz at iks-jena.de>:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:45:14PM -0700, Alice Jansen wrote:
>> Dial-in numbers:
>
> Sorry, I was in Berlin (emergency customer problem) yesterday and forget to
> remember myself to this confcall. I assumed the call to happen today and
> called without success.
>
> Sorry again.
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>


From kim at vonarx.ca  Fri Apr 29 01:42:41 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:42:41 -0400
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request - concern and
	suggestion
In-Reply-To: <3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058C7C55B6@pir-mail-01>
References: <20110422120748.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.f5120a3b06.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058C7C55B6@pir-mail-01>
Message-ID: <ABBAACCF-8D9A-4AF8-A212-2CC2C803160E@vonarx.ca>

Dear All: 

My apologies that I was not able to make the call.  

After reviewing Kathy's lengthy email explaining her worries about the "scope" of the focus group project, I think I have to agree with Kathy that we should limit it to a degree.  However, I would be hesitant to limit only to people who have a domain name or who are hoping to register one.  I would suggest we broaden that a little by saying that it would include any person: 

1. Who has a domain name
2. Who has plans to get one
3. Who has/is thinking about getting one sometime in the future

I agree there should be some kind of anchor to the DNS, how ever tenuous it may be.  Otherwise, we may as well ask anyone from a new born to a great-great-parent.  Nevertheless, I do think we should include the fringe of people who are thinking about getting a domain name or who have toyed with the idea or think it might be interesting etc and NOT just the one's who are planning to get one.  I hope the distinction between "planning" vs "thinking" is clear.  In essence, I would like to capture the people who make up the top right third of the adoption curve of a new technology, i.e., the late adopters and stragglers...

Not sure if all of this makes sense.  I am having a flue right now and have a fever so I may have written gibberish in my fever trance... 

Kim 

__________________________________

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

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







On 27 Apr 2011, at 15:30, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Dear Lynn,
> Thank you for circulating this draft budget, and thanks to you, Bill, Kim and Susan for all of the work on it.  It is an excellent and important step forward.
>  
> That said, I wanted to raise concerns about its breadth and objections I expect we will receive from some on the Board and the GNSO. I hope we can discuss this issue this evening.
>  
> What concerns me is the language of the Budget Request that says we will be surveying people who have no awareness of ICANN.  What that seems to imply is that we are surveying people with no touchpoint at all to ownership of domain names or use of the Whois system.*[text below]
>  
> I think that will be a problem for the ICANN Community for a number of reasons, including:
> 1)      The Board has send the general ?consumer? issue of the AoC to the GNSO Council for definition and deliberation.  With that process still in progress, I think the Board would be reluctant to have us (the WRT) step-in in a broad manner.  This is now a GNSO definitional issue, and not one I think we should intrude upon. The scope will ultimately decided by the GNSO.  
>  
> 2)      I fear that reaching out to  a group with no awareness of Internet processes means that they will be heavily shaped by what we say, and how we say it, as they have no thoughts or exposure to our Whois system or domain name data otherwise.  I would strongly prefer we work with those consumer who have some experience with domain name registration and/or the Whois system. It is a very large group, yet one that is arguably within the bounds of consumer, and within both the bounds of the broad and narrow ?consumer? definitions we put out for public comment.
>  
> 3)      The Study, as envisioned, can be interpreted as the Whois Review Team making policy, rather than reflecting it.  Let me explain the objection I think might be raised.  If we survey everyone, regardless of their knowledge of the domain name system, the Whois or ICANN, then we are implicitly submitting a theory of Whois as a global validation and verification tool for all websites.  The purpose of Whois, however, remains an issue in which the GNSO and ICANN Community are at odds. In fact, as we reminded by the active intervention of Eliot Noss, founder of ENom, in the Registrar Stakeholder Group during our WRT meeting there, the GNSO very nearly converged on agreement that Whois should be an ?operational point of contact? replacing all existing Whois data.  That was a process that took place a few years ago, and got voted down, he told us, only in the final vote.
>  
> Eliot point out that there was near-consensus on this narrow ?purpose? of the Whois ? an operational point of contact close to the ?technical point of contact? which many judge to be the early and original purpose of Whois (as shared by early DARPA users).   The larger vision of Whois? use and purpose, as currently encompassed by this proposed study, is one that may cast us (in the minds of some) as the WRT making policy, rather than merely reviewing it.
>  
> That said, I think the Subteam has captured something important ? and provided we limit the scope of outreach somewhat, namely to people who know have registered domain names, or hope to, and to those who know the Whois system and use it --  I think we are well within the scope of the AoC (however you interpret it), and not stepping on any policy toes.
>  
> That?s still massive group!   Thanks for the opportunity to comment and look forward to talking more tonight.
>  
> All the best,
> Kathy
>  
> *?We believe that the vast majority of Internet users have little or no awareness of ICANN, its processes, or the function it serves. However, it is this group that also must be polled to determine to what level they trust the Internet and specifically ICANN?s role in establishing that trust.?BUDGET REQUEST DRAFT
>  
>  
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG, The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org | 
>  
> Find us on Facebook  |  .ORG Blog | Flickr | YouTube | Twitter |
>  
> Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
>  
>  
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 3:08 PM
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request
>  
> Dear All,
> Bill, Kim, Susan and I have collaborated on the attached proposed draft of a budget request to
> submit to the ICANN Board.
>  
> The justification and rationale for the request is included in the draft.   Please review at your earliest convenience so that we can finalize agreement and move forward.
>  
> Also attached for reference is a copy of the updated ICANN Strategic Plan which provides additional reinforcement for the proposed external study.
>  
> Best regards,
> Lynn
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110428/b97b2d47/attachment.html 

From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Fri Apr 29 04:15:19 2011
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:15:19 -0300
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request - concern and
	suggestion
In-Reply-To: <ABBAACCF-8D9A-4AF8-A212-2CC2C803160E@vonarx.ca>
References: <20110422120748.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.f5120a3b06.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<3371CBBD15D9714482943AD5D5B75276058C7C55B6@pir-mail-01>
	<ABBAACCF-8D9A-4AF8-A212-2CC2C803160E@vonarx.ca>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinAdocHPN4riLPp-jSMB-=HeCov_w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Kim, Kathy,

On the other side, broaden it so much makes us think who are *not*
eligible in "thinking about getting one".

I think any individual should be considered a potential owner -
virtually anybody.

My 2 cents,

Omar


2011/4/28 Kim G. von Arx <kim at vonarx.ca>:
> Dear All:
> My apologies that I was not able to make the call.
> After reviewing Kathy's lengthy email explaining her worries about the
> "scope" of the focus group project, I think I have to agree with Kathy that
> we should limit it to a degree. ?However, I would be hesitant to limit only
> to people who have a domain name or who are hoping to register one. ?I would
> suggest we broaden that a little by saying that it would include any
> person:
> 1. Who has a domain name
> 2. Who has plans to get one
> 3. Who has/is thinking about getting one sometime in the future
> I agree there should be some kind of anchor to the DNS, how ever tenuous it
> may be. ?Otherwise, we may as well ask anyone from a new born to a
> great-great-parent. ?Nevertheless, I do think we should include the fringe
> of people who are thinking about getting a domain name or who have toyed
> with the idea or think it might be interesting etc and NOT just the one's
> who are planning to get one. ?I hope the distinction between "planning" vs
> "thinking" is clear. ?In essence, I would like to capture the people who
> make up the top right third of the adoption curve of a new technology, i.e.,
> the late adopters and stragglers...
> Not sure if all of this makes sense. ?I am having a flue right now and have
> a fever so I may have written gibberish in my fever trance...
> Kim
>
> __________________________________
> kim at vonarx.ca
> +1 (613) 286-4445
> "Shoot for the moon. ?Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Apr 2011, at 15:30, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> Dear Lynn,
> Thank you for circulating this draft budget, and thanks to you, Bill, Kim
> and Susan for all of the work on it. ?It is an excellent and important step
> forward.
>
> That said, I wanted to raise concerns about its breadth and objections I
> expect we will receive from some on the Board and the GNSO. I hope we can
> discuss this issue this evening.
>
> What concerns me is the language of the Budget Request that says we will be
> surveying people who have no awareness of ICANN.? What that seems to imply
> is that we are surveying people with no touchpoint at all to ownership of
> domain names or use of the Whois system.*[text below]
>
> I think that will be a problem for the ICANN Community for a number of
> reasons, including:
> 1)??????The Board has send the general ?consumer? issue of the AoC to the
> GNSO Council for definition and deliberation. ?With that process still in
> progress, I think the Board would be reluctant to have us (the WRT) step-in
> in a broad manner.? This is now a GNSO definitional issue, and not one I
> think we should intrude upon. The scope will ultimately decided by the GNSO.
>
>
> 2)??????I fear that reaching out to? a group with no awareness of Internet
> processes means that they will be heavily shaped by what we say, and how we
> say it, as they have no thoughts or exposure to our Whois system or domain
> name data otherwise. ?I would strongly prefer we work with those consumer
> who have some experience with domain name registration and/or the Whois
> system. It is a very large group, yet one that is arguably within the bounds
> of consumer, and within both the bounds of the broad and narrow ?consumer?
> definitions we put out for public comment.
>
> 3)??????The Study, as envisioned, can be interpreted as the Whois Review
> Team making policy, rather than reflecting it.? Let me explain the objection
> I think might be raised.? If we survey everyone, regardless of their
> knowledge of the domain name system, the Whois or ICANN, then we are
> implicitly submitting a theory of Whois as a global validation and
> verification tool for all websites.? The purpose of Whois, however, remains
> an issue in which the GNSO and ICANN Community are at odds. In fact, as we
> reminded by the active intervention of Eliot Noss, founder of ENom, in the
> Registrar Stakeholder Group during our WRT meeting there, the GNSO very
> nearly converged on agreement that Whois should be an ?operational point of
> contact? replacing all existing Whois data.? That was a process that took
> place a few years ago, and got voted down, he told us, only in the final
> vote.
>
> Eliot point out that there was near-consensus on this narrow ?purpose? of
> the Whois ? an operational point of contact close to the ?technical point of
> contact? which many judge to be the early and original purpose of Whois (as
> shared by early DARPA users).?? The larger vision of Whois? use and purpose,
> as currently encompassed by this proposed study, is one that may cast us (in
> the minds of some) as the WRT making policy, rather than merely reviewing
> it.
>
> That said, I think the Subteam has captured something important ? and
> provided we limit the scope of outreach somewhat, namely to people who know
> have registered domain names, or hope to, and to those who know the Whois
> system and use it -- ?I think we are well within the scope of the AoC
> (however you interpret it), and not stepping on any policy toes.
>
> That?s still massive group!? ?Thanks for the opportunity to comment and look
> forward to talking more tonight.
>
> All the best,
> Kathy
>
> *?We believe that the vast majority of Internet users have little or no
> awareness of ICANN, its processes, or the function it serves. However, it is
> this group that also must be polled to determine to what level they trust
> the Internet and specifically ICANN?s role in establishing that
> trust.?BUDGET REQUEST DRAFT
>
>
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG, The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|??www.pir.org?|
>
> Find us on?Facebook??|??.ORG Blog?|?Flickr?|?YouTube?|?Twitter?|
>
> Confidentiality Note:? Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public
> Interest Registry.? If received in error, please inform sender and then
> delete.
>
>
> From:?rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org?[mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org]?On
> Behalf Of?lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
> Sent:?Friday, April 22, 2011 3:08 PM
> To:?rt4-whois at icann.org
> Subject:?[Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request
>
> Dear All,
> Bill, Kim, Susan and I have collaborated on the attached proposed draft of a
> budget request to
> submit to the ICANN Board.
>
> The justification and rationale for the request is included in the draft.
> Please review at your earliest convenience so that we can finalize agreement
> and move forward.
>
> Also attached for reference is a copy of the updated ICANN Strategic Plan
> which provides additional reinforcement for?the proposed external study.
>
> Best regards,
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Fri Apr 29 18:29:09 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:29:09 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Draft for Budget Request - concern and
	suggestion
Message-ID: <20110429112909.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.557764452d.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110429/2a09ed54/attachment.html