From denise.michel at icann.org Mon Jun 20 01:04:35 2011 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:04:35 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget request Message-ID: Dear Team Members, Your budget request was approved by the Board Finance Committee and a resolution will be added to?the Board's agenda for approval on Friday (as part of the consent agenda). Olof and I will follow-up with Lynn to ensure we move quickly on the RFP after this action is taken. Regards, Denise From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Mon Jun 20 01:17:58 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (Lynn Goodendorf) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:17:58 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is great news- thanks! I am prepared to quickly draft an RFP and will circulate asap together with a list of companies for distribution. Lynn Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T -----Original message----- From: Denise Michel To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" Sent: Mon, Jun 20, 2011 01:04:35 GMT+00:00 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget request Dear Team Members, Your budget request was approved by the Board Finance Committee and a resolution will be added to?the Board's agenda for approval on Friday (as part of the consent agenda). Olof and I will follow-up with Lynn to ensure we move quickly on the RFP after this action is taken. Regards, Denise _______________________________________________ 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/20110620/3d217c59/attachment.html From sarmad at cantab.net Mon Jun 20 01:19:01 2011 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:19:01 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] interaction with SSAC Message-ID: Dear Emily and all, Here are possible questions which we can ask SSAC, in addition to the questions based from the Discussion Paper we circulated: 1. What are technical challenges/gaps in the implementation of WHOIS protocol? 2. What impact do these technical issues have on the use of WHOIS services? 3. How can the technical challenges/gaps be addressed? Let me know if these are OK. I will communicate these to SSAC, based on your feedback. regards, Sarmad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110619/dd757b1b/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Mon Jun 20 01:26:09 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:26:09 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ...and I hadn't even written my angry e-mail yet! Great news, thank you Denise, and thank you Lynn for offering to draft up the RFP. Best, Emily On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Lynn Goodendorf < lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote: > This is great news- thanks! > I am prepared to quickly draft an RFP and will circulate asap together with > a list of companies for distribution. > Lynn > > *Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T* > > > -----Original message----- > > *From: *Denise Michel * > To: *"rt4-whois at icann.org" * > Sent: *Mon, Jun 20, 2011 01:04:35 GMT+00:00* > Subject: *[Rt4-whois] Budget request > > Dear Team Members, > > Your budget request was approved by the Board Finance Committee and a > resolution will be added to the Board's agenda for approval on Friday > (as part of the consent agenda). > > Olof and I will follow-up with Lynn to ensure we move quickly on the > RFP after this action is taken. > > Regards, > Denise > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110620/42e2c4b4/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Mon Jun 20 03:42:58 2011 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:42:58 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] interaction with SSAC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sarmad Thank you for this. I would primarily like to know what aspects (if any) of the Discussion Paper the SSAC would be most interested in providing feedback on. Kind regards Emily On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: > Dear Emily and all, > > Here are possible questions which we can ask SSAC, in addition to the > questions based from the Discussion Paper we circulated: > > 1. What are technical challenges/gaps in the implementation of WHOIS > protocol? > 2. What impact do these technical issues have on the use of WHOIS services? > 3. How can the technical challenges/gaps be addressed? > > Let me know if these are OK. I will communicate these to SSAC, based on > your feedback. > > regards, > Sarmad > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110620/af8299ad/attachment.html From denise.michel at icann.org Mon Jun 20 07:14:39 2011 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:14:39 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Slides from Compliance Staff meeting Message-ID: Dear Team members, Attached please find the Power Point presentation used by ICANN Compliance Staff in yesterday's meeting with the Team's Compliance Subteam. 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Singapore AOC WHOIS Review with CC Final (TEAM_19Jun11).ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 1278464 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110620/c705295f/SingaporeAOCWHOISReviewwithCCFinalTEAM_19Jun11.ppt From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Jun 20 12:03:55 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:03:55 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DFF372B.2090707@kathykleiman.com> Congratulations Lynn and All! Kathy Dear Team Members, > Your budget request was approved by the Board Finance Committee and a > resolution will be added to the Board's agenda for approval on Friday > (as part of the consent agenda). > > Olof and I will follow-up with Lynn to ensure we move quickly on the > RFP after this action is taken. > > Regards, > Denise > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From omar at kaminski.adv.br Mon Jun 20 12:49:03 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:49:03 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I really don't want to see Emily angry with all her sweetness... lol Fellows, let me suggest something: to avoid (of course, if it's possible) F2F meetings in the very first day after arriving, the jet lag kicks hard our heads and the productivity falls for good. At least mine, I was like a zombie yesterday, sorry :) Omar 2011/6/20 Emily Taylor : > ...and I hadn't even written my angry e-mail yet! > > Great news, thank you Denise, and thank you Lynn for offering to draft up > the RFP. > > Best, > > Emily > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Lynn Goodendorf > wrote: >> >> This is great news- thanks! >> I am prepared to quickly draft an RFP and will circulate asap together >> with a list of companies for distribution. >> Lynn >> >> Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T >> >> -----Original message----- >> >> From: Denise Michel >> To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" >> Sent: Mon, Jun 20, 2011 01:04:35 GMT+00:00 >> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget request >> >> Dear Team Members, >> >> Your budget request was approved by the Board Finance Committee and a >> resolution will be added to?the Board's agenda for approval on Friday >> (as part of the consent agenda). >> >> Olof and I will follow-up with Lynn to ensure we move quickly on the >> RFP after this action is taken. >> >> Regards, >> Denise >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Jun 20 23:08:49 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:08:49 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Where do I need to be today? TUESDAY Message-ID: 11:00-12:00 Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Moor 12:00-12:30 Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) Bras Basah 14:00-15:00 Business Constituency (BC)/Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Moor 15:00-15:30 Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) Morrison 15:30-16:30 At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Padang Please refer to outlook invitations for remote participation details. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110620/92840b7d/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Jun 20 23:41:54 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:41:54 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Where do I need to be today? TUESDAY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DFFDAC2.5010307@kathykleiman.com> Good morning, All. I am looking forward to joining you for the SSAC and NCUC meetings. Tx to Alice for the remote participation lines. Best, Kathy* **11:00-12:00 * > > Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) > > Moor > > *12:00-12:30* > > Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) > > Bras Basah > > *14:00-15:00* > > Business Constituency (BC)/Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Moor > > *15:00-15:30* > > Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) > > Morrison > > *15:30-16:30* > > At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) > > Padang > > Please refer to outlook invitations for remote participation details. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110620/46b27e1a/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Tue Jun 21 00:23:25 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:23:25 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] =?utf-8?q?Where_do_I_need_to_be_today=3F_TUESDAY?= Message-ID: <20110620172325.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.27c63d4301.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110620/9a177a24/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Tue Jun 21 10:31:13 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:31:13 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D51066205F18863@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> I'm with you Omar. > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Omar Kaminski > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:49 AM > To: Emily Taylor > Cc: RT4 WHOIS > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Budget request > > I really don't want to see Emily angry with all her sweetness... lol > > Fellows, let me suggest something: to avoid (of course, if it's > possible) F2F meetings in the very first day after arriving, the jet > lag kicks hard our heads and the productivity falls for good. At least > mine, I was like a zombie yesterday, sorry :) > > Omar > > > > 2011/6/20 Emily Taylor : > > ...and I hadn't even written my angry e-mail yet! > > > > Great news, thank you Denise, and thank you Lynn for offering to > draft up > > the RFP. > > > > Best, > > > > Emily > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Lynn Goodendorf > > wrote: > >> > >> This is great news- thanks! > >> I am prepared to quickly draft an RFP and will circulate asap > together > >> with a list of companies for distribution. > >> Lynn > >> > >> Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVOT on AT&T > >> > >> -----Original message----- > >> > >> From: Denise Michel > >> To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > >> Sent: Mon, Jun 20, 2011 01:04:35 GMT+00:00 > >> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget request > >> > >> Dear Team Members, > >> > >> Your budget request was approved by the Board Finance Committee and > a > >> resolution will be added to?the Board's agenda for approval on > Friday > >> (as part of the consent agenda). > >> > >> Olof and I will follow-up with Lynn to ensure we move quickly on the > >> RFP after this action is taken. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Denise > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois at icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois at icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Jun 21 10:33:54 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 03:33:54 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Your sessions: material, recordings etc Message-ID: Dear RT Members, Please note that material and recordings of your sessions are available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Singapore+Meeting Transcripts will be posted as soon as received. Thank you, Very best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110621/63f5b42b/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Tue Jun 21 16:20:10 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:20:10 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget request In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D51066205F18863@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D51066205F18863@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: Thanks Bill, but I forgot a good option: to arrive two days before (and not just one) :) BTW I wanna congratulate the team for the budget request approval. Omar 2011/6/21 Smith, Bill : > I'm with you Omar. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Omar Kaminski >> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:49 AM >> To: Emily Taylor >> Cc: RT4 WHOIS >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Budget request >> >> I really don't want to see Emily angry with all her sweetness... lol >> >> Fellows, let me suggest something: to avoid (of course, if it's >> possible) F2F meetings in the very first day after arriving, the jet >> lag kicks hard our heads and the productivity falls for good. At least >> mine, I was like a zombie yesterday, sorry :) >> >> Omar From omar at kaminski.adv.br Tue Jun 21 16:23:45 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:23:45 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Your sessions: material, recordings etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Alice. it's really an honour to have you and Olof helping us. Competence is your second name. Omar 2011/6/21 Alice Jansen : > Dear RT Members, > Please note that material and recordings of your sessions are available > at:?https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Singapore+Meeting > Transcripts will be posted as soon as received. > Thank you, > Very best regards > Alice > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Tue Jun 21 22:42:54 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:42:54 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research Message-ID: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110621/bbdea07e/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DRAFT RFP Whois Consumer Trust research.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 22155 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110621/bbdea07e/DRAFTRFPWhoisConsumerTrustresearch.docx From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Jun 21 23:00:41 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:00:41 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WEDNESDAY - Where do I need to be today? Message-ID: 09:00-11:00 Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) & Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) Sophia 11:00-12:30 Governmental Advisory Committee Collyer 14:30-16:00 Interaction with the Community Canning 16:00-18:00 Internal Debriefing Moor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110621/4ae143b4/attachment.html From sarmad at cantab.net Wed Jun 22 01:05:29 2011 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:05:29 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear Lynn, Thank you for your efforts. In the following statement which stipulates the geopraphical/linguistic scope, I would want the group to consider some additions: 3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in multiple languages, compile and analyze the results and report findings. A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must include countries in the Asia Pacific region, the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per country. Surveys should be conducted in the language that is predominant for each country. The additions proposed are: 1. require that X countries in the list should be developing countries with less than 15% internet penetration (to restrict the no. of developed countries surveyed) 2. require that a Y different scripts should be covered (to avoid all or most countries in the survey to be in Latin script using languages) 3. require gender balance in the surveys (privacy concerns differ greatly across gender in some countries) 4. require some age related diversity (not just limited to youth, for example) regards, Sarmad On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, wrote: > Dear All, > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research > work. > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example. > > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in September > is going to > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest > convenience so > we can finalize it and issue. > > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution of > the RFP. > Will be sending that later this morning. > 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/20110621/d71c4835/attachment.html From kim at vonarx.ca Wed Jun 22 01:35:24 2011 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:35:24 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi Lynn: Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if we want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I think that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions obligations: (1) IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP rights; and (2) provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs should have several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think it is better for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any. I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much that will affect the budget. Kim On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, wrote: > Dear All, > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research work. > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example. > > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in September is going to > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest convenience so > we can finalize it and issue. > > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution of the RFP. > Will be sending that later this morning. > 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/20110621/200fa1ea/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DRAFT RFP Whois Consumer Trust research KvA TC.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19086 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110621/200fa1ea/DRAFTRFPWhoisConsumerTrustresearchKvATC.docx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110621/200fa1ea/attachment-0001.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Jun 22 02:18:59 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (Lynn Goodendorf) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:18:59 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: References: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim. The info I gathered on cost elements and variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental cost than the number of countries. However, in order to get a valid sample per country, some would be more difficult than others. Lynn Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T -----Original message----- From: "Kim G. von Arx" To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Sent: Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research Hi Lynn: Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if we want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I think that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions obligations: (1) IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP rights; and (2) provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs should have several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think it is better for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any. I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much that will affect the budget. Kim On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, wrote: > Dear All, > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research work. > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example. > > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in September is going to > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest convenience so > we can finalize it and issue. > > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution of the RFP. > Will be sending that later this morning. > 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/20110622/661b1aeb/attachment.html From sarmad at cantab.net Wed Jun 22 02:47:49 2011 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: References: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks Lynn and Kim. Here is another version of 3.2 incorporating some more of the points. I am highlighting changes above those already incorporated by Kim. 3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and report findings. A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must be reasonably distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at least, 3 developing countries. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per country. Surveys should be conducted in the language that is local for each country. A fair and balanced approach must be employed to canvass all age and gender groups equally. regards, Sarmad On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Lynn Goodendorf < lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote: > Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim. The info I gathered on cost elements and > variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental > cost than the number of countries. However, in order to get a valid sample > per country, some would be more difficult than others. > Lynn > > *Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T* > > > -----Original message----- > > *From: *"Kim G. von Arx" * > To: *lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com* > Cc: *rt4-whois at icann.org* > Sent: *Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00* > Subject: *Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research > > Hi Lynn: > > Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if we > want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I think > that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions obligations: (1) > IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP rights; and (2) > provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs should have > several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think it is better > for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any. > > I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity > including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder > whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and > have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much > that will affect the budget. > > Kim > > > On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, ** ** wrote: > > > Dear All, > > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research > work. > > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example. > > > > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in > September is going to > > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest > convenience so > > we can finalize it and issue. > > > > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution of > the RFP. > > Will be sending that later this morning. > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110621/b55e7f56/attachment.html From kim at vonarx.ca Wed Jun 22 02:54:12 2011 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: References: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: I agree with those changes. Thanks Sarmad. I am, however, still concerned about the limit of 10 and 3 respectively as I am concerned that 3 will not fairly canvass the developing countries in the three relevant regions, i.e., Africa, Asia-Pacific, and South-America. Therefore, I think it should, at the very least, be increased to 15 and 5 or even in the 20s. Anyway, just my thoughts. Kim On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:47, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks Lynn and Kim. > > Here is another version of 3.2 incorporating some more of the points. I am highlighting changes above those already incorporated by Kim. > > 3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and report findings. A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must be reasonably distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at least, 3 developing countries. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per country. Surveys should be conducted in the language that is local for each country. A fair and balanced approach must be employed to canvass all age and gender groups equally. > > > regards, > Sarmad > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Lynn Goodendorf wrote: > Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim. The info I gathered on cost elements and variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental cost than the number of countries. However, in order to get a valid sample per country, some would be more difficult than others. > Lynn > > Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T > > > -----Original message----- > From: "Kim G. von Arx" > To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Sent: Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00 > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research > > Hi Lynn: > > Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if we want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I think that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions obligations: (1) IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP rights; and (2) provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs should have several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think it is better for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any. > > I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much that will affect the budget. > > Kim > > > On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, wrote: > > > Dear All, > > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research work. > > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example. > > > > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in September is going to > > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest convenience so > > we can finalize it and issue. > > > > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution of the RFP. > > Will be sending that later this morning. > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110621/dcc3ac32/attachment.html From kim at vonarx.ca Wed Jun 22 02:58:16 2011 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:58:16 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: References: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Actually, having thought about it, I think we may be better served if we just simply leave the numbers out and see what the applicants suggest. Kim On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:54, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > I agree with those changes. Thanks Sarmad. I am, however, still concerned about the limit of 10 and 3 respectively as I am concerned that 3 will not fairly canvass the developing countries in the three relevant regions, i.e., Africa, Asia-Pacific, and South-America. Therefore, I think it should, at the very least, be increased to 15 and 5 or even in the 20s. > > Anyway, just my thoughts. > > Kim > > > On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:47, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thanks Lynn and Kim. >> >> Here is another version of 3.2 incorporating some more of the points. I am highlighting changes above those already incorporated by Kim. >> >> 3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and report findings. A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must be reasonably distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at least, 3 developing countries. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per country. Surveys should be conducted in the language that is local for each country. A fair and balanced approach must be employed to canvass all age and gender groups equally. >> >> >> regards, >> Sarmad >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Lynn Goodendorf wrote: >> Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim. The info I gathered on cost elements and variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental cost than the number of countries. However, in order to get a valid sample per country, some would be more difficult than others. >> Lynn >> >> Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T >> >> >> -----Original message----- >> From: "Kim G. von Arx" >> To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Sent: Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00 >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research >> >> Hi Lynn: >> >> Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if we want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I think that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions obligations: (1) IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP rights; and (2) provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs should have several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think it is better for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any. >> >> I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much that will affect the budget. >> >> Kim >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, wrote: >> >> > Dear All, >> > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research work. >> > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example. >> > >> > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in September is going to >> > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest convenience so >> > we can finalize it and issue. >> > >> > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution of the RFP. >> > Will be sending that later this morning. >> > 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 >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110621/c00c4bd6/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Jun 22 03:12:19 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (Lynn Goodendorf) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:12:19 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: References: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <933afbc0-9593-420c-b347-f872ba8bc881@blur> Many thanks! Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T -----Original message----- From: "Dr.Sarmad Hussain" To: Lynn Goodendorf , RT4 WHOIS Cc: "Kim G. von Arx" Sent: Wed, Jun 22, 2011 02:47:49 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research Dear all, Thanks Lynn and Kim. Here is another version of 3.2 incorporating some more of the points. I am highlighting changes above those already incorporated by Kim. 3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and report findings. A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must be reasonably distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at least, 3 developing countries. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per country. Surveys should be conducted in the language that is local for each country. A fair and balanced approach must be employed to canvass all age and gender groups equally. regards, Sarmad On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Lynn Goodendorf < lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote: > Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim. The info I gathered on cost elements and > variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental > cost than the number of countries. However, in order to get a valid sample > per country, some would be more difficult than others. > Lynn > > *Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T* > > > -----Original message----- > > *From: *"Kim G. von Arx" * > To: *lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com* > Cc: *rt4-whois at icann.org* > Sent: *Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00* > Subject: *Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research > > Hi Lynn: > > Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if we > want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I think > that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions obligations: (1) > IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP rights; and (2) > provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs should have > several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think it is better > for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any. > > I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity > including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder > whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and > have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much > that will affect the budget. > > Kim > > > On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, ** ** wrote: > > > Dear All, > > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research > work. > > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example. > > > > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in > September is going to > > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest > convenience so > > we can finalize it and issue. > > > > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution of > the RFP. > > Will be sending that later this morning. > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110622/fc2b9cce/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Jun 22 03:38:13 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:38:13 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Rob Golding's input - Session with RrSG & RySG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please see below input received from Rob Golding. As you might recall, Rob was participating remotely in your session with the RySG and RrSG. Thank you, Very best regards Alice > >On 6/22/11 9:30 AM, "Rob Golding" wrote: > >>I'm "remote", but we have a complete response to all the whois questions >>... >>numbered as per their points - its 2.30am in the UK ... >> >>> 1) The unfortunate situation we find ourselves in, is that the WHOIS >>> element has been vastly skewed from its original purpose. LEAs wish it >>> to be a single stop shop for identifying criminals (rarely the case), >>> mass-marketers (read: spammers) simply mine it for more hapless >>>victims, >>> goverments and others cannot simply comprehend that a domain >>> registration is entirely separated from the services offered from FQDNs >>> at that domain. >>> >>> ICANN and by extension registrar _must_ re-iterate the appropriate >>> responsibilities of each party regarding WHOIS. i.e. the actual data >>>is >>> the responsibility of the registrant, the registrar must provide >>> universal access to it, ICANN oversees that the registrar sends >>> reminders and does actually provide access to the data. >>> >>> This has additional knock-on effects which must be recognised in other >>> ICANN dealings and policies; e.g. as the registrant is responsible for >>> the data in the WHOIS service, LEAs/Governments cannot impose >>> _publisher_ restrictions or crimes upon registrars. >>> >>> ICANN must also impress upon other stakeholders i.e. the GAC and LEAs, >>> that the WHOIS service and the data contained therein, is at best >>> informational. Data held in the WHOIS cannot be construed to imply >>> relationships, contracts etc. and that registrars are ultimately >>> responsible to their commercial customers - which is not necessarily >>>the >>> party named in WHOIS. >>> >>> 2) Simply put, ICANN should set and stand-by an agreed use for the >>>WHOIS >>> service. Originally its purpose was clear, and greatly aided in the >>> technical operation of the internet. That purpose was significantly >>> muddled to the point where it is almost useless for its original >>>purpose. >>> >>> 3) We have daily exposure to the WHOIS policies for .uk, which is >>> tightly coupled both contractually and legally with the UK legal >>>system. >>> This makes controlling the data and purpose significantly easier as >>> there are enforcible contract terms (with the named registrant) to >>> delete/suspend the registration in the event of poor data quality. Due >>> to the disseparate nature of the gTLD system this is either poorly >>> defined or non-existant. At this late stage it would be considered >>> unfair and/or impossible to impose this kind of restrictions and >>> penalties for the vast populus. >>> >>> 4) This is simple. ICANN already requires the registrars to escrow >>> unprotected data. This public WHOIS data may be protected at the >>> registrant's request. Other users (i.e. LEAs) should show appropriate >>> court orders for access to the protected data when there is a clear >>>need. >>> >>> 5) It shouldn't. As long as the registrar is fufilling its escrow >>> obligations, privacy services are a commercial consideration between >>> them and their customers. There are already established legal methods >>> for revealing this data. >>> >>> 6) They aren't; registrars still regularly block/restrict and/or >>>disable >>> RADAR registered connections. Registrants are still allowed to provide >>> clearly incorrect data. >>> >>> 7) In two words, Data Quality. Registrars must rely on the information >>> provided by their customers. Largely there is no international method >>> for validation - and even so would drastically increase costs to do so. >>> We do not have any kind of international verification for postal >>>codes >>> to city for example. Whilst there are systems and validations for each >>> nation-state's system, this is not universal. >>> >>> 8) Swift and effective notification and consequences imposed when >>> required. We recognise the need for a fair amount of time to remedy >>> breaches - less so for registrants to change details but more so for >>> correcting software defects at the registrars. However, unless the >>> consequences are universally understood as certain - there will always >>> be certain quarters that will flaunt the rules. Even if a majority of >>> registrar commit to a unified code of conduct, we would be committing >>> commercial suicide as registrants would flock to those allowing them to >>> flaunt the rules or avoid their registration being removed for false >>> data. >>> >>> 9) ICANN compliance with the registrars must complete their work in a >>> timely manner. If this requires more resources then fine. However it >>> cannot 'obtain' any new powers to enforce rules on registrants. It is >>> not a 3rd party to the commercial contracts. This element of >>>compliance >>> must be handled by registrars, however unless it is employed 100% it >>> will never be effective. >>> >>> 10) I doubt it can. >>> >>> 11) No ccTLD has cracked this issue. >>> >>> 12) Yes; the more compliant a registrar attempts to become, the more >>> costs they incur - in development, customer contact or commercial >>> deficit (losing business to other registrars who simply don't care). >>> >>> 13) Largely nothing. There are still on-going compliance issues >>>causing >>> daily problems for transfers between registrars. Maybe after six to >>> nine months will a registrar lose their accreditation - but usually >>>this >>> is over fees rather than compliance. >>> >> >> > From sarmad at cantab.net Wed Jun 22 03:59:03 2011 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:59:03 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: References: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear Kim and All, I was recently in a discussion at a forum within ICANN, where we were discussing a study which did not get the necessary results and thus failed to help the work being undertaken. A self-criticism which came out of this discussion was that the group within ICANN provisioning the study did not get involved in enough detail while planning the study. Thus, I would suggest to be more specific, where we are clear in what we require (this will also help in getting clearer proposals and save re-negotiation time for ambiguous proposals). regards, Sarmad On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > Actually, having thought about it, I think we may be better served if we > just simply leave the numbers out and see what the applicants suggest. > > Kim > > > > > On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:54, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > > I agree with those changes. Thanks Sarmad. I am, however, still concerned > about the limit of 10 and 3 respectively as I am concerned that 3 will not > fairly canvass the developing countries in the three relevant regions, i.e., > Africa, Asia-Pacific, and South-America. Therefore, I think it should, at > the very least, be increased to 15 and 5 or even in the 20s. > > Anyway, just my thoughts. > > Kim > > > On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:47, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: > > Dear all, > > Thanks Lynn and Kim. > > Here is another version of 3.2 incorporating some more of the points. I am > highlighting changes above those already incorporated by Kim. > > 3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in > multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and report > findings. A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must be > reasonably distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the > Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at least, 3 developing > countries. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per > country. Surveys should be conducted in the language that is local for > each country. A fair and balanced approach must be employed to canvass all > age and gender groups equally. > > > regards, > Sarmad > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Lynn Goodendorf < > lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim. The info I gathered on cost elements and >> variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental >> cost than the number of countries. However, in order to get a valid sample >> per country, some would be more difficult than others. >> Lynn >> >> *Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T* >> >> >> -----Original message----- >> >> *From: *"Kim G. von Arx" * >> To: *lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com* >> Cc: *rt4-whois at icann.org* >> Sent: *Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00* >> Subject: *Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research >> >> Hi Lynn: >> >> Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if we >> want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I think >> that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions obligations: (1) >> IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP rights; and (2) >> provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs should have >> several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think it is better >> for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any. >> >> I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity >> including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder >> whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and >> have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much >> that will affect the budget. >> >> Kim >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, ** ** wrote: >> >> > Dear All, >> > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research >> work. >> > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example. >> > >> > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in >> September is going to >> > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest >> convenience so >> > we can finalize it and issue. >> > >> > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution >> of the RFP. >> > Will be sending that later this morning. >> > 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 >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110621/28f0becc/attachment.html From kim at vonarx.ca Wed Jun 22 04:11:13 2011 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: References: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi Sarmad: I think that is a good point, however, I would suggest that we keep the number of countries blank, but add some language that requires the applicant to support their reasoning and how it will fully encompass a truly global perspective including developing countries, genders, ages, etc. Alternatively, I would suggest we provide a range. Kim On 21 Jun 2011, at 23:59, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: > Dear Kim and All, > > I was recently in a discussion at a forum within ICANN, where we were discussing a study which did not get the necessary results and thus failed to help the work being undertaken. A self-criticism which came out of this discussion was that the group within ICANN provisioning the study did not get involved in enough detail while planning the study. Thus, I would suggest to be more specific, where we are clear in what we require (this will also help in getting clearer proposals and save re-negotiation time for ambiguous proposals). > > regards, > Sarmad > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > Actually, having thought about it, I think we may be better served if we just simply leave the numbers out and see what the applicants suggest. > > Kim > > > > > On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:54, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >> I agree with those changes. Thanks Sarmad. I am, however, still concerned about the limit of 10 and 3 respectively as I am concerned that 3 will not fairly canvass the developing countries in the three relevant regions, i.e., Africa, Asia-Pacific, and South-America. Therefore, I think it should, at the very least, be increased to 15 and 5 or even in the 20s. >> >> Anyway, just my thoughts. >> >> Kim >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:47, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thanks Lynn and Kim. >>> >>> Here is another version of 3.2 incorporating some more of the points. I am highlighting changes above those already incorporated by Kim. >>> >>> 3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and report findings. A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must be reasonably distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at least, 3 developing countries. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per country. Surveys should be conducted in the language that is local for each country. A fair and balanced approach must be employed to canvass all age and gender groups equally. >>> >>> >>> regards, >>> Sarmad >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Lynn Goodendorf wrote: >>> Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim. The info I gathered on cost elements and variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental cost than the number of countries. However, in order to get a valid sample per country, some would be more difficult than others. >>> Lynn >>> >>> Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T >>> >>> >>> -----Original message----- >>> From: "Kim G. von Arx" >>> To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com >>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>> Sent: Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00 >>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research >>> >>> Hi Lynn: >>> >>> Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if we want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I think that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions obligations: (1) IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP rights; and (2) provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs should have several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think it is better for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any. >>> >>> I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much that will affect the budget. >>> >>> Kim >>> >>> >>> On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, wrote: >>> >>> > Dear All, >>> > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research work. >>> > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example. >>> > >>> > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in September is going to >>> > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest convenience so >>> > we can finalize it and issue. >>> > >>> > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution of the RFP. >>> > Will be sending that later this morning. >>> > 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 >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110622/b9382f12/attachment.html From sarmad at cantab.net Wed Jun 22 05:57:01 2011 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:57:01 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: References: <20110621154254.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.972e4d3fac.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Thanks Kim. Range would be good idea, to give, instead of leaving it completely open. regards, Sarmad On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > Hi Sarmad: > > I think that is a good point, however, I would suggest that we keep the > number of countries blank, but add some language that requires the applicant > to support their reasoning and how it will fully encompass a truly global > perspective including developing countries, genders, ages, etc. > Alternatively, I would suggest we provide a range. > > Kim > > > On 21 Jun 2011, at 23:59, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: > > Dear Kim and All, > > I was recently in a discussion at a forum within ICANN, where we were > discussing a study which did not get the necessary results and thus failed > to help the work being undertaken. A self-criticism which came out of this > discussion was that the group within ICANN provisioning the study did not > get involved in enough detail while planning the study. Thus, I would > suggest to be more specific, where we are clear in what we require (this > will also help in getting clearer proposals and save re-negotiation time for > ambiguous proposals). > > regards, > Sarmad > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >> Actually, having thought about it, I think we may be better served if we >> just simply leave the numbers out and see what the applicants suggest. >> >> Kim >> >> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:54, Kim G. von Arx wrote: >> >> I agree with those changes. Thanks Sarmad. I am, however, still >> concerned about the limit of 10 and 3 respectively as I am concerned that 3 >> will not fairly canvass the developing countries in the three relevant >> regions, i.e., Africa, Asia-Pacific, and South-America. Therefore, I think >> it should, at the very least, be increased to 15 and 5 or even in the 20s. >> >> Anyway, just my thoughts. >> >> Kim >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:47, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Thanks Lynn and Kim. >> >> Here is another version of 3.2 incorporating some more of the points. I >> am highlighting changes above those already incorporated by Kim. >> >> 3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in >> multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and >> report findings. A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must be >> reasonably distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the >> Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at least, 3 developing >> countries. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per >> country. Surveys should be conducted in the language that is local for >> each country. A fair and balanced approach must be employed to canvass all >> age and gender groups equally. >> >> >> regards, >> Sarmad >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Lynn Goodendorf < >> lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim. The info I gathered on cost elements and >>> variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental >>> cost than the number of countries. However, in order to get a valid sample >>> per country, some would be more difficult than others. >>> Lynn >>> >>> *Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T* >>> >>> >>> -----Original message----- >>> >>> *From: *"Kim G. von Arx" * >>> To: *lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com* >>> Cc: *rt4-whois at icann.org* >>> Sent: *Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00* >>> Subject: *Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research >>> >>> Hi Lynn: >>> >>> Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if >>> we want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I >>> think that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions >>> obligations: (1) IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP >>> rights; and (2) provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs >>> should have several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think >>> it is better for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any. >>> >>> I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity >>> including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder >>> whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and >>> have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much >>> that will affect the budget. >>> >>> Kim >>> >>> >>> On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, ** ** wrote: >>> >>> > Dear All, >>> > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research >>> work. >>> > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example. >>> > >>> > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in >>> September is going to >>> > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest >>> convenience so >>> > we can finalize it and issue. >>> > >>> > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution >>> of the RFP. >>> > Will be sending that later this morning. >>> > 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20110621/0385f3e7/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Jun 22 06:09:04 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:09:04 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research Message-ID: <20110621230904.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.1022d36420.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110621/be841df6/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Jun 22 07:38:25 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:38:25 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: [At-Large] New discussion started at the IETF on a WHOIS-like standard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patrick Vande Walle Date: 2011/6/22 Subject: [At-Large] New discussion started at the IETF on a WHOIS-like standard To: At-Large Worldwide , whois-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org Dear colleagues, Some have started another run at whois. The effort is intended to address the shortcomings of whois and also to get people to deploy the result. IRIS succeeded, unfortunately, only at one of these. There are a few groups on the Internet who have put together a whois-like service using REST. The idea behind the current effort is to standardize something along these lines. We have some drafts: http://tools.ietf.org/id/weirds [1]. There is also an IETF non-WG mailing list: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds [2]. I think it might be useful if some folks from the At-Large community could participate in the discussion. It would be weird to complain later on that engineers did not take our requirements into consideration if we do not tell them from the start what we expect from a new WHOIS like system. Note that this is about the WHOIS standard, not the WHOIS service as such. But obviously, you need the standard should be able to deliver the service we want. Regards, Patrick Vande Walle -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Links: ------ [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/weirds [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org From sarmad at cantab.net Wed Jun 22 09:17:30 2011 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 02:17:30 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research In-Reply-To: <20110621230904.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.1022d36420.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20110621230904.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.1022d36420.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear Lynn, Also, as discussed, we need to list the interim and final deliverables in the the RFP (survery for feedback, data, report, etc.). regards, Sarmad On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:09 PM, wrote: > agree - will be working on revisions after our internal debrief this > afternoon. > Thanks to both of you for reading the draft right away and coming back with > useful changes to make. > Lynn > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research > From: "Dr.Sarmad Hussain" > Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 1:57 am > To: "Kim G. von Arx" > Cc: RT4 WHOIS > > Thanks Kim. Range would be good idea, to give, instead of leaving it > completely open. > > regards, > Sarmad > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >> Hi Sarmad: >> >> I think that is a good point, however, I would suggest that we keep the >> number of countries blank, but add some language that requires the applicant >> to support their reasoning and how it will fully encompass a truly global >> perspective including developing countries, genders, ages, etc. >> Alternatively, I would suggest we provide a range. >> >> Kim >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2011, at 23:59, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: >> >> Dear Kim and All, >> >> I was recently in a discussion at a forum within ICANN, where we were >> discussing a study which did not get the necessary results and thus failed >> to help the work being undertaken. A self-criticism which came out of this >> discussion was that the group within ICANN provisioning the study did not >> get involved in enough detail while planning the study. Thus, I would >> suggest to be more specific, where we are clear in what we require (this >> will also help in getting clearer proposals and save re-negotiation time for >> ambiguous proposals). >> >> regards, >> Sarmad >> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Kim G. von Arx wrote: >> >>> Actually, having thought about it, I think we may be better served if >>> we just simply leave the numbers out and see what the applicants suggest. >>> >>> Kim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:54, Kim G. von Arx wrote: >>> >>> I agree with those changes. Thanks Sarmad. I am, however, still >>> concerned about the limit of 10 and 3 respectively as I am concerned that 3 >>> will not fairly canvass the developing countries in the three relevant >>> regions, i.e., Africa, Asia-Pacific, and South-America. Therefore, I think >>> it should, at the very least, be increased to 15 and 5 or even in the 20s. >>> >>> Anyway, just my thoughts. >>> >>> Kim >>> >>> >>> On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:47, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thanks Lynn and Kim. >>> >>> Here is another version of 3.2 incorporating some more of the points. >>> I am highlighting changes above those already incorporated by Kim. >>> >>> 3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in >>> multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and >>> report findings. A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must be >>> reasonably distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the >>> Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at least, 3 developing >>> countries. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per >>> country. Surveys should be conducted in the language that is local for >>> each country. A fair and balanced approach must be employed to canvass all >>> age and gender groups equally. >>> >>> >>> regards, >>> Sarmad >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Lynn Goodendorf < >>> lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim. The info I gathered on cost elements and >>>> variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental >>>> cost than the number of countries. However, in order to get a valid sample >>>> per country, some would be more difficult than others. >>>> Lynn >>>> >>>> *Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO? on AT&T* >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original message----- >>>> >>>> *From: *"Kim G. von Arx" * >>>> To: *lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com* >>>> Cc: *rt4-whois at icann.org* >>>> Sent: *Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00* >>>> Subject: *Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research >>>> >>>> Hi Lynn: >>>> >>>> Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if >>>> we want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I >>>> think that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions >>>> obligations: (1) IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP >>>> rights; and (2) provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs >>>> should have several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think >>>> it is better for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any. >>>> >>>> I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity >>>> including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder >>>> whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and >>>> have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much >>>> that will affect the budget. >>>> >>>> Kim >>>> >>>> >>>> On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, ****wrote: >>>> >>>> > Dear All, >>>> > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research >>>> work. >>>> > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an >>>> example. >>>> > >>>> > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in >>>> September is going to >>>> > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest >>>> convenience so >>>> > we can finalize it and issue. >>>> > >>>> > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution >>>> of the RFP. >>>> > Will be sending that later this morning. >>>> > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/20110622/694c780b/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Fri Jun 24 03:24:54 2011 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:24:54 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board just approved the budget request Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F850C8D8BB@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear all, FYI Just a short message that the budget request was formally approved by the Board 30 seconds ago;-) Best regards Olof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110623/e5d8ef92/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri Jun 24 08:54:20 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:54:20 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Thanks again! + Information on Dakar Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Just dropping a line to thank you once again for a very fruitful week. Thank you for your patience, enthusiasm and cheerfulness! As always, it was a real pleasure to work with you all and I am looking forward to seeing you all in September in Marina del Rey. A preliminary report of the meeting will be posted on the Singapore meeting webpage: https://community.icann.org/display/ssrreview/Singapore+Meeting As promised during our last exchange, please find enclosed a link to information on the Dakar meeting (injections, visas etc): http://dakar42.icann.org/travel. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or concerns. Safe travels! All the best Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110624/fbe43f3b/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri Jun 24 08:58:20 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:58:20 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] LINK: Thanks again! + Information on Dakar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: And the link to the wiki is as follows: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Singapore+Meeting? Apologies for the confusion? I need to find my brain ? must have left it somewhere at the venue! Kind regards Alice From: Alice Jansen > Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:54:20 -0700 To: "rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS" > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Thanks again! + Information on Dakar Dear Review Team Members, Just dropping a line to thank you once again for a very fruitful week. Thank you for your patience, enthusiasm and cheerfulness! As always, it was a real pleasure to work with you all and I am looking forward to seeing you all in September in Marina del Rey. A preliminary report of the meeting will be posted on the Singapore meeting webpage: https://community.icann.org/display/ssrreview/Singapore+Meeting As promised during our last exchange, please find enclosed a link to information on the Dakar meeting (injections, visas etc): http://dakar42.icann.org/travel. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or concerns. Safe travels! All the best Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110624/0e01a2fb/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Fri Jun 24 10:27:49 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:27:49 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board just approved the budget request In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F850C8D8BB@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F850C8D8BB@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: And some community members are starting to complain on Twitter... and probably not only on Twitter... http://twitter.com/#!/jintlaw/statuses/84099845094252544 "crazy?? $655,000 in #ICANN Whois studies in the next year??? not the best way to spend our money" Have a safe trip. Omar 2011/6/24 Olof Nordling : > Dear all, > > FYI Just a short message that the budget request was formally approved by > the Board 30 seconds ago;-) > > Best regards > > Olof > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Jun 24 10:37:44 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 03:37:44 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board just approved the budget request Message-ID: <20110624033744.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.398c3d67ac.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110624/b9530591/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Fri Jun 24 10:41:50 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:41:50 +0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board just approved the budget request In-Reply-To: <20110624033744.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.398c3d67ac.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20110624033744.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.398c3d67ac.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Indeed, James. Our RT should be ready for (and to rebate) criticisms. Omar 2011/6/24 James M. Bladel : > Bear in mind that many parties objected to the original slate of WHOIS > studies on policy, budget, and methodology grounds.? So adding another WHOIS > study would not be well received by some. > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Board just approved the budget request > From: Omar Kaminski > Date: Fri, June 24, 2011 5:27 am > To: rt4-whois > > And some community members are starting to complain on Twitter... and > probably not only on Twitter... > > http://twitter.com/#!/jintlaw/statuses/84099845094252544 > > "crazy?? $655,000 in #ICANN Whois studies in the next year??? not the > best way to spend our money" > > Have a safe trip. > > Omar > > > > 2011/6/24 Olof Nordling : >> Dear all, >> >> FYI Just a short message that the budget request was formally approved by >> the Board 30 seconds ago;-) >> >> Best regards >> >> Olof >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 sarmad at cantab.net Fri Jun 24 11:16:50 2011 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 04:16:50 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board just approved the budget request In-Reply-To: References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F850C8D8BB@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: How much of this is for WHOIS-RT and how much for GNSO? regards, Sarmad On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote: > And some community members are starting to complain on Twitter... and > probably not only on Twitter... > > http://twitter.com/#!/jintlaw/statuses/84099845094252544 > > "crazy?? $655,000 in #ICANN Whois studies in the next year??? not the > best way to spend our money" > > Have a safe trip. > > Omar > > > > 2011/6/24 Olof Nordling : > > Dear all, > > > > FYI Just a short message that the budget request was formally approved by > > the Board 30 seconds ago;-) > > > > Best regards > > > > Olof > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20110624/78cfb29a/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Jun 24 21:59:54 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:59:54 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board just approved the budget request Message-ID: <20110624145954.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.342d5ce3a5.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110624/a3415486/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Sat Jun 25 23:38:46 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:38:46 +0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board just approved the budget request In-Reply-To: <20110624145954.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.342d5ce3a5.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20110624145954.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.342d5ce3a5.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: James, all, Great. How about a public statement (on Whois RT4 level), even if just for transparency purposes? Greetings from Amsterdam, way to BR tomorrow morning. Omar PS: I was wondering about validating databases for accuracy purposes, how many people do pay for domains with credit cards? Probably 70%+. That's an obvious connection. 2011/6/24 James M. Bladel : > The RT4 allocation is $125k.? Here is the full resolution, which lists > amounts for the other studies: > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-24jun11-en.htm#3 > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Board just approved the budget request > From: "Dr.Sarmad Hussain" > Date: Fri, June 24, 2011 6:16 am > To: Olof Nordling > Cc: rt4-whois > > How much of this is for WHOIS-RT and how much for GNSO? > regards, > Sarmad > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote: >> >> And some community members are starting to complain on Twitter... and >> probably not only on Twitter... >> >> http://twitter.com/#!/jintlaw/statuses/84099845094252544 >> >> "crazy?? $655,000 in #ICANN Whois studies in the next year??? not the >> best way to spend our money" >> >> Have a safe trip. >> >> Omar >> >> >> >> 2011/6/24 Olof Nordling : >> > Dear all, >> > >> > FYI Just a short message that the budget request was formally approved >> > by >> > the Board 30 seconds ago;-) >> > >> > Best regards >> > >> > Olof >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Rt4-whois mailing list >> > Rt4-whois at icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > ________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > From jbladel at godaddy.com Sun Jun 26 03:40:44 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:40:44 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Outgoing Chairman's thoughts on "Public Interest" and the AoC Message-ID: <20110625204044.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.e7573d9759.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110625/8619cc2f/attachment.html