From omar at kaminski.adv.br Mon May 16 02:00:49 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 23:00:49 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper In-Reply-To: <20110515163606.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.dc6440b172.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20110515163606.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.dc6440b172.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear Team, My considerations are attached, using the same docx as Bill then James. Have a great week, Omar 2011/5/15 James M. Bladel > > Emily and Team: > > My comments are attached, appended to Bill's draft.? Most of these were composed somewhere over the N. Atlantic, so apologies if they don't make sense and/or need further explanation. > Thanks-- > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper > From: Emily Taylor > Date: Sun, May 15, 2011 9:13 am > To: "rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS" > > Hi all > A gentle reminder that we agreed to review the draft issues paper, and circulate comments by close of business on Monday. The Team has asked Alice to edit the comments, and we're hoping to set up a call on Wednesday with this as the only agenda item. > So far, Kathy and Bill have circulated comments - thank you. > Please let's have your comments by end of Monday. ?If you're happy with the paper, or have views on the comments already made, please say so. > Thanks > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Review - draft discussion paper REVISED wcs JMB_and_OK_comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 39029 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110515/289bb99f/WHOISReview-draftdiscussionpaperREVISEDwcsJMB_and_OK_comments.docx From kim at vonarx.ca Mon May 16 02:06:32 2011 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 22:06:32 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper In-Reply-To: <20110515163606.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.dc6440b172.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20110515163606.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.dc6440b172.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <968009C0-A4D8-484D-8B78-AA6A2CB9BA9A@vonarx.ca> voila. Kim __________________________________ kim at vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." On 15 May 2011, at 19:36, James M. Bladel wrote: > Emily and Team: > > My comments are attached, appended to Bill's draft. Most of these were composed somewhere over the N. Atlantic, so apologies if they don't make sense and/or need further explanation. > > Thanks-- > > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper > From: Emily Taylor > Date: Sun, May 15, 2011 9:13 am > To: "rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS" > > Hi all > > A gentle reminder that we agreed to review the draft issues paper, and circulate comments by close of business on Monday. The Team has asked Alice to edit the comments, and we're hoping to set up a call on Wednesday with this as the only agenda item. > > So far, Kathy and Bill have circulated comments - thank you. > > Please let's have your comments by end of Monday. If you're happy with the paper, or have views on the comments already made, please say so. > > Thanks > > Emily > > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 > emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110515/04780083/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Review - draft discussion paper REVISED wcs + JMB comments + KvA.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 50693 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110515/04780083/WHOISReview-draftdiscussionpaperREVISEDwcsJMBcommentsKvA.docx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110515/04780083/attachment-0001.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Mon May 16 06:31:55 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 07:31:55 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper In-Reply-To: <968009C0-A4D8-484D-8B78-AA6A2CB9BA9A@vonarx.ca> References: <20110515163606.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.dc6440b172.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <968009C0-A4D8-484D-8B78-AA6A2CB9BA9A@vonarx.ca> Message-ID: This is really good. Thanks Kim, James, Omar, for circulating your comments on the Issues Paper, building on Kathy and Bill's inputs. Peter, I note that you will be circulating your comments later on today. We now have a good range of comments, and comments on the comments. Others - I think that's Olivier, Wilfried, Lutz, Susan, Sharon, Michael, Sarmad - please either let us have your inputs, or some other indication of where you stand. Best, Emily On 16 May 2011, at 03:06, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > voila. > > Kim > > > > __________________________________ > > kim at vonarx.ca > +1 (613) 286-4445 > > "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." > > > > > > > > On 15 May 2011, at 19:36, James M. Bladel wrote: > >> Emily and Team: >> >> My comments are attached, appended to Bill's draft. Most of these were composed somewhere over the N. Atlantic, so apologies if they don't make sense and/or need further explanation. >> >> Thanks-- >> >> J. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper >> From: Emily Taylor >> Date: Sun, May 15, 2011 9:13 am >> To: "rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS" >> >> Hi all >> >> A gentle reminder that we agreed to review the draft issues paper, and circulate comments by close of business on Monday. The Team has asked Alice to edit the comments, and we're hoping to set up a call on Wednesday with this as the only agenda item. >> >> So far, Kathy and Bill have circulated comments - thank you. >> >> Please let's have your comments by end of Monday. If you're happy with the paper, or have views on the comments already made, please say so. >> >> Thanks >> >> Emily >> >> >> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK >> telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 >> emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110516/82ebafaf/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Mon May 16 07:30:12 2011 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 17:30:12 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: <20110515163606.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.dc6440b172.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3028C083A5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello all, I have been following these discussions with interest (including the recording of the last teleconference). Almost every point I can think to make has already been made by others, so I'll avoid confusing the paper by commenting on comments etc. In short, I think some of Kathy's additions are very useful, and I think we should be able to usefully recast them to avoid some of the issues raised by Bill. I also agree with many of the points made by others, including James' point about potentially replacing the list in the introduction with a short uncontentious statement (to avoid the risk of trying to develop and agree on some sort of exhaustive list). I look forward to discussing this further with you all on Wednesday. Kind regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Omar Kaminski Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 12:01 PM To: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper Dear Team, My considerations are attached, using the same docx as Bill then James. Have a great week, Omar 2011/5/15 James M. Bladel > > Emily and Team: > > My comments are attached, appended to Bill's draft.? Most of these were composed somewhere over the N. Atlantic, so apologies if they don't make sense and/or need further explanation. > Thanks-- > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper > From: Emily Taylor > Date: Sun, May 15, 2011 9:13 am > To: "rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS" > > Hi all > A gentle reminder that we agreed to review the draft issues paper, and circulate comments by close of business on Monday. The Team has asked Alice to edit the comments, and we're hoping to set up a call on Wednesday with this as the only agenda item. > So far, Kathy and Bill have circulated comments - thank you. > Please let's have your comments by end of Monday. ?If you're happy with the paper, or have views on the comments already made, please say so. > Thanks > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Mon May 16 09:23:20 2011 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (LEMON, Sharon) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 10:23:20 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C6757A19C@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Emily, I have taken time to read all of the comments, and don't have any other comments to make. This is one where the rest of the group have far more experience than me, and can add best value. 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 Emily Taylor Sent: 16 May 2011 07:32 To: rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper This is really good. Thanks Kim, James, Omar, for circulating your comments on the Issues Paper, building on Kathy and Bill's inputs. Peter, I note that you will be circulating your comments later on today. We now have a good range of comments, and comments on the comments. Others - I think that's Olivier, Wilfried, Lutz, Susan, Sharon, Michael, Sarmad - please either let us have your inputs, or some other indication of where you stand. Best, Emily On 16 May 2011, at 03:06, Kim G. von Arx wrote: voila. Kim __________________________________ kim at vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." On 15 May 2011, at 19:36, James M. Bladel wrote: Emily and Team: My comments are attached, appended to Bill's draft. Most of these were composed somewhere over the N. Atlantic, so apologies if they don't make sense and/or need further explanation. Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper From: Emily Taylor > Date: Sun, May 15, 2011 9:13 am To: "rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS" > Hi all A gentle reminder that we agreed to review the draft issues paper, and circulate comments by close of business on Monday. The Team has asked Alice to edit the comments, and we're hoping to set up a call on Wednesday with this as the only agenda item. So far, Kathy and Bill have circulated comments - thank you. Please let's have your comments by end of Monday. If you're happy with the paper, or have views on the comments already made, please say so. Thanks 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 ________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 [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 This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110516/560fdab5/attachment.html From sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Mon May 16 10:33:25 2011 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (LEMON, Sharon) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:33:25 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Summary of public comments - Law Enforcement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C6757A1A2@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED I have reviewed the comments in relation to law enforcement. There were seven comments from: Business Constituency Coalition against Unsolicited Commercial email European Communities Trademark Association + Marques Intellectual Property Constituency Lexinta Registrar Stakeholder Group Volodya Only the Business Constituency were happy with the law enforcement definition, with all others suggesting some admendments or significant changes. Emily/Anyone - what are the next steps please? The original defination was as a result of our small subgroup, Kim, Lutz and I - where we came up with the definition and prepared a questionnaire. Peter is currently looking at the questionnaire before we ask the RT to approve me sending it to my law enforcement network and Peter submitting to his GAC colleagues for their network. Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110516/8fee96bd/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Mon May 16 10:50:58 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:50:58 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Summary of public comments - Law Enforcement In-Reply-To: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C6757A1A2@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> References: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C6757A1A2@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: <50981362-25A9-4B66-B62D-1866DAC6369F@etlaw.co.uk> Hi Sharon Thank you for reviewing the public comments. As for next steps, please would you prepare a summary for the Review Team, as follows: 1. Propose amendments to the definitions, based on comments received and/or 2. Suggest explanatory text which makes the subgroup's reasoning clearer (sometimes you get comments which are things you have considered in preparing your document, and you just need to explain why you chose to do something different) or 3. Where you cannot accept a comment, please provide reasoning This is a task where two heads (or more) are infinitely better than one - no offence, Sharon! - and I suggest that you work within the law enforcement subgroup in discussing the comments, and what you intend to take on board or otherwise. So, I suggest that you work with Kim, and Lutz. If anyone else wants to be involved in this process, who is not also involved in a similar process with one of the other definitional subteams, please volunteer. Best, Emily On 16 May 2011, at 11:33, LEMON, Sharon wrote: > NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED > > I have reviewed the comments in relation to law enforcement. There were seven comments from: > > Business Constituency > Coalition against Unsolicited Commercial email > European Communities Trademark Association + Marques > Intellectual Property Constituency > Lexinta > Registrar Stakeholder Group > Volodya > > Only the Business Constituency were happy with the law enforcement definition, with all others suggesting some admendments or significant changes. > > Emily/Anyone - what are the next steps please? The original defination was as a result of our small subgroup, Kim, Lutz and I - where we came up with the definition and prepared a questionnaire. Peter is currently looking at the questionnaire before we ask the RT to approve me sending it to my law enforcement network and Peter submitting to his GAC colleagues for their network. > > > Sharon > > > Sharon LEMON OBE > Deputy Director > Cyber and Forensics > Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) > 07768 290902 > 0207 855 2800 > > 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. 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/20110516/bb159dab/attachment.html From Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru Mon May 16 11:27:21 2011 From: Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru (Yakushev Mikhail) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:27:21 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3028C083A5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <20110515163606.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.dc6440b172.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3028C083A5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <7C0268D000FB534D8BEDFAD61C5E72A815AC2F@OWA.mazal.ru> Dear Emily, colleagues as for my comments to the draft of the draft Discussion Paper, I fully share Peter's view. Kind regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 11:30 AM To: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hello all, I have been following these discussions with interest (including the recording of the last teleconference). Almost every point I can think to make has already been made by others, so I'll avoid confusing the paper by commenting on comments etc. In short, I think some of Kathy's additions are very useful, and I think we should be able to usefully recast them to avoid some of the issues raised by Bill. I also agree with many of the points made by others, including James' point about potentially replacing the list in the introduction with a short uncontentious statement (to avoid the risk of trying to develop and agree on some sort of exhaustive list). I look forward to discussing this further with you all on Wednesday. Kind regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Omar Kaminski Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 12:01 PM To: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper Dear Team, My considerations are attached, using the same docx as Bill then James. Have a great week, Omar 2011/5/15 James M. Bladel > > > Emily and Team: > > My comments are attached, appended to Bill's draft. Most of these were composed somewhere over the N. Atlantic, so apologies if they don't make sense and/or need further explanation. > Thanks-- > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper > From: Emily Taylor > Date: Sun, May 15, 2011 9:13 am > To: "rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS" > > Hi all > A gentle reminder that we agreed to review the draft issues paper, and circulate comments by close of business on Monday. The Team has asked Alice to edit the comments, and we're hoping to set up a call on Wednesday with this as the only agenda item. > So far, Kathy and Bill have circulated comments - thank you. > Please let's have your comments by end of Monday. If you're happy with the paper, or have views on the comments already made, please say so. > Thanks > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110516/47e4e818/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Mon May 16 16:58:42 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:58:42 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper Message-ID: <20110516095842.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.49ab3b7691.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110516/e1a1b14c/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Review - draft discussion paper REVISED wcs JMB_and_OK" filename*1="_LG_comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 37813 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110516/e1a1b14c/WHOISReview-draftdiscussionpaperREVISEDwcsJMB_and_OKfilename1_LG_comments.docx From susank at fb.com Mon May 16 21:15:48 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 21:15:48 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review - draft discussion paper REVISED by Susan Kawaguchi.docx Message-ID: Hello All, Hopefully, I have added my comments to the latest revised version. Susan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110516/8424c2c8/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Review - draft discussion paper REVISED by Susan Kawaguchi.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41153 bytes Desc: WHOIS Review - draft discussion paper REVISED by Susan Kawaguchi.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110516/8424c2c8/WHOISReview-draftdiscussionpaperREVISEDbySusanKawaguchi.docx From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Tue May 17 09:59:00 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:59:00 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review Team - Timely reimbursement of expenses Message-ID: Hi Denise As you know, I'm working through 1:1 calls with the Review Team members at the moment. One of the issues that has been raised by a number of team members, and was mentioned during our last call, is the delay in reimbursement of expenses. As mentioned, this is a matter of concern for me as the Chair, not only on my own account, but also because ICANN is benefiting from extensive voluntary work from team members, who are willingly giving of their time, including calls outside of office hours, and travel to meetings. We are not asking for special treatment, but for a reasonably efficient turn around in reimbursing out of pocket expenses. Thank you for offering to look into this for us. I would be grateful if you would report back on the timings for reimbursement, explaining the reasons for the delays we have experienced, and whether there is anything that team members can do to assist the process. 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/20110517/f1218fa5/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Tue May 17 10:01:08 2011 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 03:01:08 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reimbursement delays - our apologies, and a procedure change! Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F84EE0D6BF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Review Team members, As highlighted at the latest conference call, many of you have experienced undue delays in reimbursements from ICANN. First of all, please accept our sincere apologies for the inconveniences caused. We have looked into this and rectified the procedures to prevent future delays. Normally, reimbursements shall be made so that you have the money on your account within three weeks from submitting the form to us. From now on, in order to keep the timeline and to safeguard traceability, please submit your forms to me at olof.nordling at icann.org and to Alice at alice.jansen at icann.org . Also, when booking your travels with constituency-travel at icann.org, or requesting approval for booking your own travel, please remember to copy me and Alice. Furthermore, if you have any particular concerns or questions regarding these or related matters, please contact me at your earliest convenience. The above will enable us to keep track of the requests and ensure prompt handling. Thank you for your patience and for assisting us in getting it right. Very best regards Olof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110517/1c251a38/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Tue May 17 10:04:36 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:04:36 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reimbursement delays - our apologies, and a procedure change! In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F84EE0D6BF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F84EE0D6BF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: Dear Olof Thank you for your mail, your apology, and for your practical suggestions. As mentioned in my previous e-mail to Denise, I would appreciate some feedback as to what has caused the delays we have experienced to date, but naturally we are all interested in solutions for the future - and so your suggestions are welcome. All team members are highly appreciative of your and Alice's excellent work in supporting us. Best, Emily On 17 May 2011, at 11:01, Olof Nordling wrote: > Dear Review Team members, > As highlighted at the latest conference call, many of you have experienced undue delays in reimbursements from ICANN. First of all, please accept our sincere apologies for the inconveniences caused. We have looked into this and rectified the procedures to prevent future delays. > > Normally, reimbursements shall be made so that you have the money on your account within three weeks from submitting the form to us. From now on, in order to keep the timeline and to safeguard traceability, please submit your forms to me at olof.nordling at icann.org and to Alice at alice.jansen at icann.org . > > Also, when booking your travels with constituency-travel at icann.org, or requesting approval for booking your own travel, please remember to copy me and Alice. > > Furthermore, if you have any particular concerns or questions regarding these or related matters, please contact me at your earliest convenience. > > The above will enable us to keep track of the requests and ensure prompt handling. Thank you for your patience and for assisting us in getting it right. > > Very best regards > > Olof > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110517/ba7c919d/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Tue May 17 11:25:34 2011 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 04:25:34 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reimbursement delays - our apologies, and a procedure change! In-Reply-To: References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F84EE0D6BF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F84EE0D6D9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Emily, Doing the forensics, we found a combination of forms ending up on the wrong desk and a lack of traceability due to Alice and me not being in the loop, hence the changes decided at a call with management yesterday. We've got the details/status of each request tracked down now and Alice will send information on that to members individually. Very best regards Olof From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 12:05 PM To: Olof Nordling Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Reimbursement delays - our apologies, and a procedure change! Dear Olof Thank you for your mail, your apology, and for your practical suggestions. As mentioned in my previous e-mail to Denise, I would appreciate some feedback as to what has caused the delays we have experienced to date, but naturally we are all interested in solutions for the future - and so your suggestions are welcome. All team members are highly appreciative of your and Alice's excellent work in supporting us. Best, Emily On 17 May 2011, at 11:01, Olof Nordling wrote: Dear Review Team members, As highlighted at the latest conference call, many of you have experienced undue delays in reimbursements from ICANN. First of all, please accept our sincere apologies for the inconveniences caused. We have looked into this and rectified the procedures to prevent future delays. Normally, reimbursements shall be made so that you have the money on your account within three weeks from submitting the form to us. From now on, in order to keep the timeline and to safeguard traceability, please submit your forms to me at olof.nordling at icann.org and to Alice at alice.jansen at icann.org . Also, when booking your travels with constituency-travel at icann.org, or requesting approval for booking your own travel, please remember to copy me and Alice. Furthermore, if you have any particular concerns or questions regarding these or related matters, please contact me at your earliest convenience. The above will enable us to keep track of the requests and ensure prompt handling. Thank you for your patience and for assisting us in getting it right. Very best regards Olof _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/logo310.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110517/403e3f1f/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue May 17 11:32:26 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 04:32:26 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Discussion paper - PLEASE REVIEW IN ANTICIPATION OF TOMORROW's CONF CALL Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached a version of the Discussion Paper that compiles the editing suggestions and amendments submitted by the Team. Kindly note that a call is scheduled for tomorrow - 07:00 UTC ? to discuss this paper. Very best regards Olof and Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110517/658c7a8e/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Review - draft discussion paper consolidated v3.doc Type: application/x-msword Size: 87552 bytes Desc: WHOIS Review - draft discussion paper consolidated v3.doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110517/658c7a8e/WHOISReview-draftdiscussionpaperconsolidatedv3.doc From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Tue May 17 13:06:03 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:06:03 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Discussion paper - PLEASE REVIEW IN ANTICIPATION OF TOMORROW's CONF CALL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46032312-8143-4227-9BE0-DCC0C6BAEA1F@etlaw.co.uk> Dear Alice Thank you for your work on this paper. The presentation makes it much easier to see what's going on than a multitude of tracked changes. Dear Team Looking forward to our call and discussions on this paper tomorrow. I'm aware that the call is at a dreadful time for the US East Coasters and Brazil. If there's any particular points that you would like to make, please either do so on the list or let me have your points before tomorrow's call, and I'll make sure that they are taken into consideration. Best, Emily On 17 May 2011, at 12:32, Alice Jansen wrote: > Dear Review Team Members, > > Please find attached a version of the Discussion Paper that compiles the editing suggestions and amendments submitted by the Team. > > Kindly note that a call is scheduled for tomorrow - 07:00 UTC ? to discuss this paper. > > Very best regards > > Olof and Alice > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110517/518cedc5/attachment.html From lutz at iks-jena.de Tue May 17 13:43:56 2011 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 15:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Summary of public comments - Law Enforcement In-Reply-To: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C6757A1A2@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> References: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C6757A1A2@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: <20110517134356.GA3538@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:33:25AM +0100, LEMON, Sharon wrote: > I have reviewed the comments in relation to law enforcement. Thank you. ************************************************************************ Reading through the messages (http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-rt/index.html) I found the following comments: > ALAC : We endorse a formal definition of the term ?law enforcement?? and the term : "legitimate needs of law enforcement." > Business Constituency : The BC accepts the definitions provided by the WRT for the terms Law : Enforcement ... > European Communities Trademark Association + Marques : This definition is very broadly drafted. Is it intended that private : parties interested in enforcing civil law remedies should fall within such : a definition? If it is intended to refer to law enforcement in the sense : of public agencies, such as Police forces, then greater care needs to be : taken in the drafting. Consideration needs to be given to the range of : legitimate legal proceedings, whether criminal, civil or administrative, : for which access to WHOIS data, or extended WHOIS data, should be : available. > Intellectual Property Constituency : The Review Team appears to read this phrase as limited to governmental : enforcement agencies. We do not believe there is any evidence that the : drafters of the AOC intended this reading. Rather, in assessing whether : the implementation of Whois policy ?meets the legitimate needs of law : enforcement,? the Review Team should focus on whether this implementation : meets needs that are legitimate for the enforcement of laws. Many laws : depend for their enforcement upon the efforts of private parties, : including, to a great extent, laws protecting trademark and copyright. : Certainly reliable access to accurate Whois data plays a significant role : in advancing the legitimate needs of enforcement of these laws. > Volodya : The term LEA (or "Law Enforcement" as it's termed) is defined without : making the scope clear. As this conglamaration of groups is being somehow : placed in the separate category than the "regular humans" it is important : to know if we are talking about traffic wardens or NSA here. In addition : to that the term government needs to be defined very carefully, several : micronations exist in today's world, and they do have their governments, : can they create agencies which will be placed in this category? > Guilmette : Certainly, that can be inferred from the mere fact that one of the : questions that has been put to the community by the review team is one : concerning the proper defintion of "law enforcement". Such a definition : can only, and will only be useful if it has been decided (pre-decided?) : that the domain name WHOIS service will have (or does have) some special : and particular intended uses which are unique to "law enforcement". : : I suppose that by raising such questions as "What is law enforcement'?" : outside observers such as myself might conclude that the WRT is in fact : wending its way, however circuitously, towards a kind of a formal charter : for domain name WHOIS service, but my simple suggestion would be to for- : mally and explicitly assert and acknowledge that the development of a : formal charter for domain name WHOIS service is in fact a goal and in- : tended work product of the WRT. I would argue that it is only within the : framework of exactly such a formal goal do questions such as "What is law : enforcement?" even make any sense. The definition, even if one can be : agreed, is utterly superfluous in the absence of context. : : I have no opinion of the best or most proper definition of the term `law : enforcement'' until I am presented with at least a draft of the : over-arching document into which said definition is intended to fit. (And : if that over-arching document asserts that henceforth only `law : enforcement'' shall be granted access to certain types of WHOIS : information, then everyone may be assured that any definition of `law : enforcement'' that _I_ would likely espouse would most assuredly be : drafted so broadly as to include myself.) In the finalized document http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-rt/pdfZCv8tpNnFc.pdf there is an additional comments (not occuring in the mailing list archive): > Coalition against Unsolicited Commercial email : The definition does not distinguish between sworn law enforcement : officials and other entities with the mentioned obligations. Law : enforcement officers should be narrowly defined as individuals: 1) who : have been sworn or commissioned as a law enforcement officer by a : government agency of competent authority; 2) who are charged with : upholding the general criminal laws of an applicable jurisdiction, : including having power to arrest; 3) typically have received specialized : peace officer training (see submission for examples); 4) who normally : receive tangible official signs of their role such as police uniform or : official credentials. Adjusting this definition does not mean to exclude : non?sworn officials from the scope, they just need another label. It : should also be considered whether law enforcement should include national : intelligence services and national/multi?national military services Comments from the following parties did not refer to Law Enforcement definition. > Lexinta > Registrar Stakeholder Group ************************************************************************ Please let me first clarify my understanding of the Law Enforcement definition: My proposal is narrow "A law enforcement agency is an government agency responsible for the enforcement of the laws, which is subject to judicial or open civil overview." (Extracted from Wikipedia, added "civil overview" to prohibit secrect and military services) http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/Week-of-Mon-20110131/000537.html The current definition is "Law Enforcement shall be considered to be an entity authorized by a government and whose responsibilities include the maintenance, co-ordination, or enforcement of laws, multi-national treaty or government-imposed legal obligations." https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/A+-+Law+enforcement The current proposal for the definition includes "maintain, co-ordinate" in addition to "enforce", so extending law enforcement to law making bodies as well as regulatory authorites. The current proposal for the definition replaced "government agency" by "entity authorized by a government", so extending law enforcement to any kind of commercial organisation which is in charge of an government contract regarding any lawful acitivity. The current proposal of the definition includes "multi-national treaty or government-imposed legal obligations" in addition to law, so extending the law enforcement to any kind of intellectual propererty and contract law. This allows any commercial body to insist on the same rights as classical law enforcement. Please do not consider this as a work group position. It's just _my_ understanding. ************************************************************************ My summary on those comments: : ALAC insists on a "formal definition". From first hand knowledge, I have : to add that this statement means to have a definition (however it will be) : to rely on for further policy agreements. It states, that ALAC awaits a : definition with can be widly accepted within ICANN. I'd accept the ALAC comment for us. We do provide such a definition. : BC simply says, that they have nothing to do with LAE and therefore ignore : the topic. I'd ignore the BC comment for us. : ECTA and Marques wish to have a narrower definition. They do not feel well : with including the private parties. Furthermore they insist on a definition : of "legitimate use", hence use cases. I'd accept the ECTA/Marques comment for us. We should narrow the definition. : IPC wish to have a wider definition. They do not feel will with the : governmental relationship requirement and like to include everybody who : deals with law enforcment on any basis. I'd reject the IPC comment for us. Extenting the definition to everybody will not help. : Mr. Volodya wishs to understand definition by seeing concrete examples. He : points out the corner cases of the definition. I'd accept the Volodya comment for us. We should provide a lot of examples which case should be covered by the definition and which not. : Mr. Guilmette insits of creating the use cases for the definition first. : He clearly remarks that there is no need for any law enforcement : definition at the moment, simply because law enforcement is not mentioned : in the policies. I'd reject the Guilmette comment for us. We should not wait for new policies which refer to law enforcement before considering the AoC requirments. : CAUCE wish to have a special definition for the people doing the law : enforcement and proposes a definition for governmental agents of this : type. I'd reject the CAUCE comment for us. We should not diffenciate the internal structures of law enforcemnt. ************************************************************************ HTH From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed May 18 06:19:58 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 23:19:58 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - WHOIS RT Call TODAY at 07:00 UTC Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Per the decision reached during your last call, an additional teleconference has been added to your schedule with a view to finalizing the Issues Paper. 07:00 UTC is the selected time slot as this ensures Peter's presence on the call. **Wednesday, 18 May 2011** 07:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+CALL&iso=20110518T07 Password: 27318 followed by # Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Agenda:Finalize the Issues document - https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+11+-+18+May+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 T ? local toll number ; M ? mobile preferred number ; L ? landline preferred number Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for this call. Thank you, Very best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen at icann.org Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110517/149a381a/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed May 18 08:09:08 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 01:09:08 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Note Pod Content from call today In-Reply-To: <2918651.25789.1305705949598.JavaMail.breezesvc@pacna7app08> Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, For your convenience, please find below the content of our Note pod. Thanks, Best Alice AGENDA: - Discuss and finalize the WHOIS RT Discussion Paper PARTICIPANTS : Sharon, James, Susan, Emily, Peter, Lutz, Michael, Lynn, Bill, Sarmad, Olof, Alice APOLOGIES: Kim, Omar, Kathy NOTES: Introduction: Needs Background on WHOIS: paragraph #1: Elimination of red text paragraph #2: Deletion paragraph #2 bulletpoints: deleting - --> WHOIS facilitates identification and communication for a range of purposes Issues for discussion: / Clarity of existing policy: (paragraph 9.3.1), 2007 and GAC....delete red Consensus and lack of consensus New gTLD WHOIS Policies: Updates made to WHOIS policies or changes approved to WHOIS Policies (LG's proposal) ACTION ITEMS: Staff --> Produce updated version of this document with agreed changes, recirculate. Focus on the Consensus section. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110518/3980887b/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed May 18 08:12:36 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 01:12:36 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chat Transcript - today's call In-Reply-To: <21678393.25791.1305705974631.JavaMail.breezesvc@pacna7app08> Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find below the chat transcript of your call: > Lutz Donnerhacke: (5/18/2011 09:02) Yes > Emily Taylor: (09:03) hi Lutz > Lynn Goodendorf: (09:03) yes > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:03) legitemete needs is AoC > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:07) Whois began as alook-up service toenable >Internetoperators to findone another andcommunicatedirectly if >abnormalitiesin trafficoccur betweenservers. (ICANNAnnual Report ?09) > Lynn Goodendorf: (09:10) while it began that way, it is not up to date > Lynn Goodendorf: (09:12) I like "those who operate" > Lynn Goodendorf: (09:12) yes > Bladel: (09:13) I like "those who operate" > Bladel: (09:13) I think policy is "Registered Name Holder" > Lynn Goodendorf: (09:13) good point Susan > Susan: (09:14) Registered Name Holder would be fine with me > Lynn Goodendorf: (09:15) what about "registrant contacts for..." > peter: (09:17) I like James' original suggestion of 'entities >responsible for' > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:17) whois -h whois.ripe.net -i e-mail >lutz at iks-jena.de > Sharon LEMON 2: (09:18) I would support James' proposal too > Bladel: (09:22) Either is fine by me. > Bladel: (09:24) 1.5 Red Bull > Sharon LEMON 2: (09:24) 9am > Susan: (09:32) I agree with James > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:35) ... techincal ressource lookup .. > Bladel: (09:35) "technical queries?" > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:35) ok > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:36) Example: RFC 2622 - Routing Policy >Specification Language (RPSL) > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:37) yes > Bladel: (09:37) in one swell foop. > Bladel: (09:40) it was mine. > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:40) It's even unclear, where the AoC wording is >comming from. > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:40) 1) law enforcement occurs there for the first >time (not in the polices) > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:41) 2) legitimate needs are not described > Lutz Donnerhacke: (09:41) 3) definition of whois (as accurate, timely, >... service) is not founded. > Bladel: (09:57) consensus policies: >http://www.icann.org/en/general/consensus-policies.htm > Alice Jansen: (09:59) FYI - Bill dropped > Bladel: (10:03) ongoing policy development or Whois policy >milestones.... or something. > Lutz Donnerhacke: (10:04) Thank you all > Sharon LEMON 2: (10:04) Thanks All, good sleep or good day > Alice Jansen: (10:05) Thank you for participating From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed May 18 11:50:33 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 04:50:33 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft discussion paper consolidated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached a version of the draft discussion paper that reflects the decisions reached today. Kindly note that we have deleted the boxes and inserted table cells since layout issues were raised during the call. Please review the document in anticipation of your teleconference scheduled for Wednesday, 25 May. Thank you, Very best regards Olof & Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110518/399debae/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Review - draft discussion paper consolidated v5.doc Type: application/x-msword Size: 75264 bytes Desc: WHOIS Review - draft discussion paper consolidated v5.doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110518/399debae/WHOISReview-draftdiscussionpaperconsolidatedv5.doc From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri May 20 16:28:24 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 09:28:24 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS RT-IPC Message-ID: e3d3721e-d26a-4d6e-8af4-0ad2c672855a When: Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:00 PM-4:30 PM. Azores Standard Time Where: Adigo Bridge *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Dear IPC Members Dear WHOIS Review Team Members, Your session is scheduled for: **Thursday, 26 May 2011** 15:00 UTC ? 08:00 PDT Please check your local time at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=IPC-WHOIS+RT&iso=20110526T15 Password: 27318 followed by # Dial-in numbers: If you cannot find a dial-in number for your country of residence below, 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 T ? local toll number ; M ? mobile preferred number ; L ? landline preferred number Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for this call. Thank you, Very best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen at icann.org Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110520/797d82be/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 3340 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110520/797d82be/attachment.bin