From emily at emilytaylor.eu Mon Jul 4 12:10:03 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:10:03 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Assignments - Action required Message-ID: Hi all At our wrap-up face to face meeting in Singapore, the messages I took away were: - You want me to be more prescriptive as your Chair, and assign people to draft up the sections of the report. - We want to get the RFP issued and signed off - We want to brain-storm recommendations, and "rise above our parochial interests" in doing so. *1. Assigning individuals to draft up the report.* OK - here's my assignments for drafting up the report: Kathy - Sections 3 and 4 (Scope and Methodology) Sharon - Section 5 (What do the terms contained in the AoC and our scope mean) Law enforcement, applicable laws, producers and maintainers Lynn - Section 5 (from Consumer trust) James - Section 6 (Identification and Inventory of Existing WHOIS policy) Emily - Section 7 (Identification and Inventory of ICANN's implementation) Peter - Section 8 (Gap analysis) Goal/Deadline. Please circulate first draft by the end of July. If you need to get others to help you with sections, please do so, but you are responsible for delivery of the draft in time. If you have other commitments which will prevent you from meeting the deadline, please let me know as soon as possible, and we will figure it out. We will revisit Exec Summary, Introduction, and Recommendations once we have made progress. Sharon/Lynn - Section 5 is quite a biggie, and we also agreed that it would contain use cases and stakeholder analysis. We also need to work out how we present the outcome of our law enforcement and consumer trust questionnaire. I think the best approach will be to annex the reports, and highlight the findings in the body of the report. Section 5 will contain evidence of what law enforcement and consumers told us their needs were. Then any impressions on policy or implementation will fit into sections 6 and 7, and gaps identified will be in section 8. *2. RFP* Lynn has done some sterling work on the draft, and I think is awaiting some input from the lawyers amongst us on the terms side (Kim - please can you help out on this). My impression from our last meeting was that we are comfortable for this to be issued, without further rounds of comments from us. So, Kim, can I ask you to coordinate with Lynn to get this finished, and issued, and Lynn you can provide us with an update on Wednesday's call. 3. Brainstorming recommendations. For our next call, I would like to start brainstorming our recommendations, and I want everyone to pick their top 3. I think Bill put it nicely in our last meeting: "Pretend to be the wisest, most benevolent dictator. You need to fix this problem, but you cannot alienate one or more groups of your subjects. What would you do to solve it?" So, on our next call, we will do a virtual tour de table, and deliver our 3 recommendations. Kind regards Emily PLEASE NOTE: from 30 June 2011 my contact details have changed (see below). [image: Emily Taylor Consultancy - Internet Governance] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110704/b92e8dca/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Jul 4 12:46:50 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 05:46:50 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Call - Wed, 6 July - AGENDA Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find enclosed the agenda of your next call scheduled for this upcoming Wednesday at 10:00 UTC. 1. Adopt agenda 2. Report of Singapore meeting 3. Brainstorming session - Recommendations (All - to bring 3 recommendations. Those unable to join, please circulate in advance of the call). 4. RFP update (Lynn) 5. Assignment of individuals to draft sections of report (any comments, or queries) 6. Circulating comments from stakeholder meetings (all) 7. Update on ALAC vacancy due to resignation of Olivier Iteanu. 8. AOB Kindly note that this agenda is also available on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+14+-+06+July+2011 Thanks, Very best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110704/ae267da1/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Jul 4 12:52:09 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 05:52:09 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - Singapore Meeting - for your consideration Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the preliminary report of your meeting in Singapore. Please submit your editing suggestions by Wednesday. Thanks, Very best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110704/252ff12a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Prel Rep - Singapore- WHOIS RT.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 27883 bytes Desc: Prel Rep - Singapore- WHOIS RT.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110704/252ff12a/PrelRep-Singapore-WHOISRT.docx From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Tue Jul 5 22:24:06 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:24:06 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research Message-ID: <20110705152406.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.23d16157f7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110705/c1336822/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Final Draft RFP Whois Consumer Trust research_5July2011.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18389 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110705/c1336822/FinalDraftRFPWhoisConsumerTrustresearch_5July2011.docx From susank at fb.com Tue Jul 5 23:24:39 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:24:39 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations Message-ID: Hello, The following are 4 recommendations and additional information surrounding my suggestions in the attached document. 1) Create Single WHOIS policy 2) Change to a Registry Thick WHOIS 3) Registrant pays for validation of WHOIS data 4) Create contractual agreements between ICANN and each Proxy/Privacy Registration service provider and impose standardized best practices Considering the call is at 3 am pdt I will not be on the call I do not think I can add anything substantial to the discussion in the middle of the night. Good luck and I look forward to listening to the recording of the call tomorrow. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110705/42c199dd/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WRT recommendations 7511.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26431 bytes Desc: WRT recommendations 7511.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110705/42c199dd/WRTrecommendations7511.docx From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Jul 6 00:08:11 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 18:08:11 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Ideas for WHOIS Reform Message-ID: <98CE074C-7D00-4D97-948C-C9A3AF3D4FD0@paypal-inc.com> 1) Maintain the status quo. While it may not meet the objective of not alienating anyone, it should maintain current levels of alienation. 2) Develop a thoughtful and practical redesign of the DNS ecosystem taking into account current and expected issues: + Separate policies from contracts + Reduce information available to public (OPOC?, or TWOPOC) + Have a two-level WHOIS system (public, vetted access) + Mandate SLAs for Registrars, Registries, Registrants + Establish clear takedown policies, and enforce them (criminal activity) + Bring Privacy and Proxy services under the umbrella 3) Forget about DNS (sorry KKR) From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Jul 6 01:01:54 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 22:01:54 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Since is targeted to 7 AM (I'm a late sleeper and it?s freezing here specially in the morning), I'll listen to the recording. Have a good call. Omar 2011/7/5 Susan Kawaguchi : > Hello, > > > > The following are 4 recommendations and additional information surrounding > my suggestions in the attached document. > > > > 1)????? Create Single WHOIS policy > > 2)????? Change to a Registry Thick WHOIS > > 3)????? Registrant pays for validation of WHOIS data > > 4)????? Create contractual agreements between ICANN and each Proxy/Privacy > Registration service provider and impose standardized best practices > > Considering the call is at 3 am pdt I will not be on the call? I do not > think I can add anything substantial to the discussion in the middle of the > night. > > > > Good luck and I look forward to listening to the recording of the call > tomorrow. > > > > Susan Kawaguchi > > Domain Name Manager > > > > Facebook Inc. > > 1601 California Avenue > > Palo Alto, CA > > > > Phone - 650 485-6064 > > Cell - 650 387 3904 > > > > Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com > > NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that > is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other > privilege. ?Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or > retransmit the email or its contents. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Jul 6 01:46:32 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 22:46:32 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 10 UTC, Kim. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Conf+Call+-+6+July&iso=20110706T10 Rgds, O. 2011/7/5 Kim G. von Arx : > I am getting confused. What time is the call scheduled for? ? I have it for 10 pm est? > > Kim > > Please excuse my typos! ?This is sent from my iPhone. > > On 2011-07-05, at 21:01, Omar Kaminski wrote: > >> Since is targeted to 7 AM (I'm a late sleeper and it?s freezing here >> specially in the morning), I'll listen to the recording. >> >> Have a good call. >> >> Omar >> >> >> >> 2011/7/5 Susan Kawaguchi : >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> The following are 4 recommendations and additional information surrounding >>> my suggestions in the attached document. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) ? ? ?Create Single WHOIS policy >>> >>> 2) ? ? ?Change to a Registry Thick WHOIS >>> >>> 3) ? ? ?Registrant pays for validation of WHOIS data >>> >>> 4) ? ? ?Create contractual agreements between ICANN and each Proxy/Privacy >>> Registration service provider and impose standardized best practices >>> >>> Considering the call is at 3 am pdt I will not be on the call ?I do not >>> think I can add anything substantial to the discussion in the middle of the >>> night. >>> >>> >>> >>> Good luck and I look forward to listening to the recording of the call >>> tomorrow. >>> >>> >>> >>> Susan Kawaguchi >>> >>> Domain Name Manager >>> >>> >>> >>> Facebook Inc. >>> >>> 1601 California Avenue >>> >>> Palo Alto, CA >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone - 650 485-6064 >>> >>> Cell - 650 387 3904 >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com >>> >>> NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that >>> is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other >>> privilege. ?Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or >>> retransmit the email or its contents. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 kim at vonarx.ca Wed Jul 6 01:54:04 2011 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:54:04 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I got the time from our wiki. I won't be able to make the call as I have my daughter and she usually wakes up at that time. Anyway, here are three, of many, suggested changes that I think may be prudent: 1. Make a distinction between legal and natural persons and also provide an exemption for certain natural person registrants to be "categorized" as "persons" requiring some privacy/protection, e.g., battered women shelters. 2. Implement a random audit of Registrants to verify the accuracy of their information in the WHOIS database. This should include a global requirement for each registrant to confirm his/her/its contact details every year or every 6 months, e.g., send email to registrant, registrant needs to go to a link, provide some authentication tool, and confirm information. Note, this is per registrant and NOT per domain name. 3. Provide some special access to law enforcement and UDRP applicants to WHOIS information for legitimate and reasonable reasons of natural and legal persons, but it needs to be a controlled access. Finally, thanks Lynn for the RFP. Great work and I am fine with it. While I think that the legal language should be tightened up, but since ICANN legal does not want to share theirs I don't see why we lawyers should put our neck out there and provide legal advice on that front. In light of that, I am fine with the content of the RFP, but would urge ICANN to conduct its own due diligence with respect to the terms and conditions of the RFP to ensure proper legal protection. Kim __________________________________ kim at vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110705/a2bb98c5/attachment.html From sarmad at cantab.net Wed Jul 6 02:46:27 2011 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 19:46:27 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research In-Reply-To: <20110705152406.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.23d16157f7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20110705152406.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.23d16157f7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear Lynn, Thanks. Just another thought that the spread of consumers intended in 3.1 should also be reflected in 3.2. What I am trying to say is that, for example, we do not want the survey to come back from only those who have never used the whois service as that may bias the data. This factor is not controlled in 3.2 yet. So we may be add following language in 3.2: The consumer spread discussed in 3.1 should be adequately covered in the survey conducted. regards, Sarmad On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, wrote: > Dear All, > Attached is a copy of the final draft of the RFP for Consumer Trust > research. > I am ready to release this on Friday so want to give everyone on the team > an opportunity > for a quick review before our conference call tomorrow. > > Thanks to everyone who contributed to this, particularly Sarmad and Kim. > We also received some valuable suggestions from Denise Michel and Liz > Gasster. > > The companies we have identified so far for the RFP include (in > alphabetical order): > > BCG > Comscore > Consumer Insights Practice > Iconoculture, Inc. > IDC > OTX > SIS International Research > User Insight > > We have set up an email address for responses that will be directed to a > list including Olaf Nordling, > Sarmad, Kim, Emily and me. Please speak up if you would like to be added > to that list. > > Kind regards, > Lynn Goodendorf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110705/1d8ef408/attachment.html From kim at vonarx.ca Wed Jul 6 01:10:51 2011 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:10:51 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am getting confused. What time is the call scheduled for? I have it for 10 pm est? Kim Please excuse my typos! This is sent from my iPhone. On 2011-07-05, at 21:01, Omar Kaminski wrote: > Since is targeted to 7 AM (I'm a late sleeper and it?s freezing here > specially in the morning), I'll listen to the recording. > > Have a good call. > > Omar > > > > 2011/7/5 Susan Kawaguchi : >> Hello, >> >> >> >> The following are 4 recommendations and additional information surrounding >> my suggestions in the attached document. >> >> >> >> 1) Create Single WHOIS policy >> >> 2) Change to a Registry Thick WHOIS >> >> 3) Registrant pays for validation of WHOIS data >> >> 4) Create contractual agreements between ICANN and each Proxy/Privacy >> Registration service provider and impose standardized best practices >> >> Considering the call is at 3 am pdt I will not be on the call I do not >> think I can add anything substantial to the discussion in the middle of the >> night. >> >> >> >> Good luck and I look forward to listening to the recording of the call >> tomorrow. >> >> >> >> Susan Kawaguchi >> >> Domain Name Manager >> >> >> >> Facebook Inc. >> >> 1601 California Avenue >> >> Palo Alto, CA >> >> >> >> Phone - 650 485-6064 >> >> Cell - 650 387 3904 >> >> >> >> Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com >> >> NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that >> is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other >> privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or >> retransmit the email or its contents. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Jul 6 03:18:19 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 00:18:19 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also, this part is "to walk over eggs" like we say here (pag. 9 WRT): "Impose standards on proxy/privacy services on what data is protected". Should/could these standards be categorized? What was done so far? How to deal with different levels of protection, specially on a political point of view like in free speech? Omar 2011/7/5 Kim G. von Arx : > I got the time from our wiki. ?I won't be able to make the call as I have my > daughter and she usually wakes up at that time. > Anyway, here are three, of many, suggested changes that I think may be > prudent: > 1. Make a distinction between legal and natural persons and also provide an > exemption for certain natural person registrants to be "categorized" as > "persons" requiring some privacy/protection, e.g., battered women shelters. > 2. Implement a random audit of Registrants to verify the accuracy of their > information in the WHOIS database. ?This should include a global requirement > for each registrant to confirm his/her/its contact details every year or > every 6 months, e.g., send email to registrant, registrant needs to go to a > link, provide some authentication tool, and confirm information. ?Note, this > is per registrant and NOT per domain name. > 3. Provide some special access to law enforcement and UDRP applicants to > WHOIS information for legitimate and reasonable reasons of natural and legal > persons, but it needs to be a controlled access. > Finally, thanks Lynn for the RFP. ?Great work and I am fine with it. ?While > I think that the legal language should be tightened up, but since ICANN > legal does not want to share theirs I don't see why we lawyers should put > our neck out there and provide legal advice on that front. ?In light of > that, I am fine with the content of the RFP, but would urge ICANN to conduct > its own due diligence with respect to the terms and conditions of the RFP to > ensure proper legal protection. > Kim > > __________________________________ > kim at vonarx.ca > +1 (613) 286-4445 > "Shoot for the moon. ?Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Jul 6 03:38:19 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:38:19 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E13D8AB.8090603@kathykleiman.com> If I can do 1AM (Singapore), then I can do 6AM. :-) Looking forward to joining the call, Kathy Since is targeted to 7 AM (I'm a late sleeper and it?s freezing here > specially in the morning), I'll listen to the recording. > > Have a good call. > > Omar > > > > 2011/7/5 Susan Kawaguchi: >> Hello, >> >> >> >> The following are 4 recommendations and additional information surrounding >> my suggestions in the attached document. >> >> >> >> 1) Create Single WHOIS policy >> >> 2) Change to a Registry Thick WHOIS >> >> 3) Registrant pays for validation of WHOIS data >> >> 4) Create contractual agreements between ICANN and each Proxy/Privacy >> Registration service provider and impose standardized best practices >> >> Considering the call is at 3 am pdt I will not be on the call I do not >> think I can add anything substantial to the discussion in the middle of the >> night. >> >> >> >> Good luck and I look forward to listening to the recording of the call >> tomorrow. >> >> >> >> Susan Kawaguchi >> >> Domain Name Manager >> >> >> >> Facebook Inc. >> >> 1601 California Avenue >> >> Palo Alto, CA >> >> >> >> Phone - 650 485-6064 >> >> Cell - 650 387 3904 >> >> >> >> Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com >> >> NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that >> is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other >> privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or >> retransmit the email or its contents. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Jul 6 03:57:54 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:57:54 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research In-Reply-To: <20110705152406.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.23d16157f7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20110705152406.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.23d16157f7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4E13DD42.8020701@kathykleiman.com> Hi Lynn and All who worked on this important RFP, It looks great, but after working closely with ICANN Staff and a Working Group to redesign 3 other Whois Studies (the ones recently approved), I think we may be leaving too much too broad for the companies we seek to work with. Consistent with these other surveys, I propose that we identify the existence of proxy and privacy services -- as this should not come as a surprise to them. (We may even want to include more detail that I have added.) In addition, I think we should clearly lay out the two definitions of consumer trust which have been presented to us again and again (starting with Larry Strickling): privacy (consumer trust as the trust of the domain name consumer, the registrant) and accountability (consumer trust as the trust of the 3rd party [of many groups] seeking Whois data for investigative and research purposes. Short edits proposed and attached. Great thanks, Kathy Attachment (edits should be visible through track changes, if not, please let me know!) Dear All, > Attached is a copy of the final draft of the RFP for Consumer Trust > research. > I am ready to release this on Friday so want to give everyone on the > team an opportunity > for a quick review before our conference call tomorrow. > > Thanks to everyone who contributed to this, particularly Sarmad and Kim. > We also received some valuable suggestions from Denise Michel and Liz > Gasster. > > The companies we have identified so far for the RFP include (in > alphabetical order): > > BCG > Comscore > Consumer Insights Practice > Iconoculture, Inc. > IDC > OTX > SIS International Research > User Insight > > We have set up an email address for responses that will be directed to > a list including Olaf Nordling, > Sarmad, Kim, Emily and me. Please speak up if you would like to be > added to that list. > > Kind regards, > Lynn Goodendorf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110705/dec79f0e/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Final Draft RFP Whois Consumer Trust research_5July2011 kk ed.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 32768 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110705/dec79f0e/FinalDraftRFPWhoisConsumerTrustresearch_5July2011kked.doc From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Jul 6 04:12:07 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 22:12:07 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research In-Reply-To: <4E13DD42.8020701@kathykleiman.com> References: <20110705152406.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.23d16157f7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> <4E13DD42.8020701@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <22C3678A-AACC-4BF4-B852-817834C01639@paypal.com> It's late for me, but I want to state my objection to considering those who "consume domain names" as consumers. I do not believe that was Strickling's intention. On Jul 5, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi Lynn and All who worked on this important RFP, It looks great, but after working closely with ICANN Staff and a Working Group to redesign 3 other Whois Studies (the ones recently approved), I think we may be leaving too much too broad for the companies we seek to work with. Consistent with these other surveys, I propose that we identify the existence of proxy and privacy services -- as this should not come as a surprise to them. (We may even want to include more detail that I have added.) In addition, I think we should clearly lay out the two definitions of consumer trust which have been presented to us again and again (starting with Larry Strickling): privacy (consumer trust as the trust of the domain name consumer, the registrant) and accountability (consumer trust as the trust of the 3rd party [of many groups] seeking Whois data for investigative and research purposes. Short edits proposed and attached. Great thanks, Kathy Attachment (edits should be visible through track changes, if not, please let me know!) Dear All, Attached is a copy of the final draft of the RFP for Consumer Trust research. I am ready to release this on Friday so want to give everyone on the team an opportunity for a quick review before our conference call tomorrow. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this, particularly Sarmad and Kim. We also received some valuable suggestions from Denise Michel and Liz Gasster. The companies we have identified so far for the RFP include (in alphabetical order): BCG Comscore Consumer Insights Practice Iconoculture, Inc. IDC OTX SIS International Research User Insight We have set up an email address for responses that will be directed to a list including Olaf Nordling, Sarmad, Kim, Emily and me. Please speak up if you would like to be added to that list. Kind regards, Lynn Goodendorf _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Jul 6 06:00:03 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:00:03 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations Message-ID: <20110705230003.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.0da1838f60.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110705/726b6e9a/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Jul 6 06:19:23 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:19:23 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: <20110705230003.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.0da1838f60.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20110705230003.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.0da1838f60.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Good point, James. ICANN should clarify / would centralize anyway, even to weigh / prioritize the stakeholders interests (as a pre-policy level). I remember to ask about this once, what kind of (most common) legal struggles arise from Whois use, or misuse worldwide? Do we have (ok, or need) access to those files? Omar 2011/7/6 James M. Bladel : > Will do my best to join, but don't wait up for me. :) > As far as the recommendations floated so far, I think some would be > surprised at the degree to which I support /agree (at least in concept) with > some of them. > Overall, however, my concern is that we are straying in to recommending > "solutions" for WHOIS policy, rather than reviewing ICANN's performance > versus its commitments.? So my "brainstorm recommendations" might look > something like: > Findings: > 1)? In the current WHOIS system, ICANN is trying to serve too many > interests.? Some of which are mutually exclusive and in conflict. > 2)? Therefore, it must fail some of its stakeholders/constituents at least > some of the time.? And perhaps all stakeholders at some times. > 3)? ICANN's WHOIS policy is unknown/poorly defined/decentralized/unevenly > implemented. > Recommendations: > I)? ICANN should inventory its stakeholders and their critical WHOIS needs > II)? ICANN should weigh / prioritize these interests, and manage the > expectations of various stakeholders. > ?? IIa) This may lead to a tiered WHOIS access model, where some interests > are more closely regulated, and some are no longer free of charge. > III)? ICANN should clarify / centralize its WHOIS policy and implementation. > J. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations > From: Kathy Kleiman > Date: Tue, July 05, 2011 10:38 pm > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > If I can do 1AM (Singapore), then I can do 6AM. :-) > Looking forward to joining the call, > Kathy > > > Since is targeted to 7 AM (I'm a late sleeper and it?s freezing here >> specially in the morning), I'll listen to the recording. >> >> Have a good call. >> >> Omar >> >> >> >> 2011/7/5 Susan Kawaguchi: >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> The following are 4 recommendations and additional information >>> surrounding >>> my suggestions in the attached document. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) Create Single WHOIS policy >>> >>> 2) Change to a Registry Thick WHOIS >>> >>> 3) Registrant pays for validation of WHOIS data >>> >>> 4) Create contractual agreements between ICANN and each Proxy/Privacy >>> Registration service provider and impose standardized best practices >>> >>> Considering the call is at 3 am pdt I will not be on the call I do not >>> think I can add anything substantial to the discussion in the middle of >>> the >>> night. >>> >>> >>> >>> Good luck and I look forward to listening to the recording of the call >>> tomorrow. >>> >>> >>> >>> Susan Kawaguchi >>> >>> Domain Name Manager >>> >>> >>> >>> Facebook Inc. >>> >>> 1601 California Avenue >>> >>> Palo Alto, CA >>> >>> >>> >>> Phone - 650 485-6064 >>> >>> Cell - 650 387 3904 >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com >>> >>> NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information >>> that >>> is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other >>> privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, >>> or >>> retransmit the email or its contents. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 lutz at iks-jena.de Wed Jul 6 08:43:47 2011 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:43:47 +0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110706084347.GA10984@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 11:24:39PM +0000, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > 1) Create Single WHOIS policy > 2) Change to a Registry Thick WHOIS I do oppose any thick whois apporach as RT-recommendation. Fulfilling national data protection laws is impossible with any centralized (extra territorial) data store. >From the perspective of lawful implementation of Whois services, only a thin whois structure is possible. I strongly suggest to extend the thin whois delegations into the reseller chain. This requires approbriate contracts between registries and registrars as well as registrars and resellers. > 3) Registrant pays for validation of WHOIS data > 4) Create contractual agreements between ICANN and each Proxy/Privacy Registration service provider and impose standardized best practices I do oppose any proxy/privacy services while maintaining the whois requirement. Either the data is required or proxy services are allowed. Both approaches conflict in practice. If proxy/privacy services are allowed, whois services should not collect and publish personal data (of at least owner and admin) anymore. From sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk Wed Jul 6 21:48:14 2011 From: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk (Sarmad Hussain) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:48:14 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Assignments - Action required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4e142f61.0123440a.56f5.161e@mx.google.com> Dear All, 1. ICANN has a clear policy document, which identifies motivation/need/objectives of WHOIS service(s), WHOIS data required, and the stakeholders and their responsibilities in the process 2. The policy document is translated into existing/additonal SLAs with relevant stakeholders 3. Consumer should be the owner of the data in the process and should have EASY access to update data in his/her language (considering a monolingual non-latin consumer as well) I will not be able to attend the call as I am teaching a class at this time. Regards, Sarmad 3. Brainstorming recommendations. For our next call, I would like to start brainstorming our recommendations, and I want everyone to pick their top 3. I think Bill put it nicely in our last meeting: "Pretend to be the wisest, most benevolent dictator. You need to fix this problem, but you cannot alienate one or more groups of your subjects. What would you do to solve it?" So, on our next call, we will do a virtual tour de table, and deliver our 3 recommendations. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/6008964e/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Jul 6 10:01:10 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:01:10 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call now Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Your next conference call is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 6 July 2011** 10:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Conf+Call+-+6+July&iso=20110706T10 Password: 27318 followed by # Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Agenda:https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+14+-+06+July+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/20110706/9e5dfda2/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Jul 6 10:29:08 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:29:08 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] recommendations document Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/107151a5/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recommendations v2.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 33583 bytes Desc: Recommendations v2.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/107151a5/Recommendationsv2.docx From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Jul 6 10:51:09 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:51:09 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] recommendations v3 :-) Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/64de3232/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recommendations v3.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 35235 bytes Desc: Recommendations v3.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/64de3232/Recommendationsv3.docx From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Jul 6 10:51:20 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 06:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] recommendations v3 :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E143E28.1090003@kathykleiman.com> Thank you, Alice, and enjoy your vacation!! Kathy > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110706/4f2a906e/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed Jul 6 11:18:40 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:18:40 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Follow up to the call Message-ID: Hi Olof Many thanks for taking on the follow up work while Alice is on holiday. These are the tasks I think we just agreed: 1. Please would you do a first pass on "bundling" the recommendations into related issues. Kathy and I can then review 2. Please would you liaise with Lynn who has the RT's authority to sign off the RFP once the deadline for comments has expired. I noticed a couple of typos, so would be grateful if you could also do a final proofread (I think you became Olaf again ;-)) 3. Alice has kindly forwarded links to documents on Applicable Laws and Producers/Maintainers to Sharon. Please would you follow up with Sharon if she has any further requests or would like to set up calls with those involved in the subteams covering those issues. 4. We would like to have a note of people's availability over the coming holiday period (Northern Hemisphere). This would be on the private wiki. Please would you organise this. Kind regards Emily PLEASE NOTE: from 30 June 2011 my contact details have changed (see below). [image: Emily Taylor Consultancy - Internet Governance] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/8ee0b8b3/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed Jul 6 11:28:18 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:28:18 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research In-Reply-To: <22C3678A-AACC-4BF4-B852-817834C01639@paypal.com> References: <20110705152406.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.23d16157f7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> <4E13DD42.8020701@kathykleiman.com> <22C3678A-AACC-4BF4-B852-817834C01639@paypal.com> Message-ID: Dear Lynn Thank you for sterling work on this RFP. I just scanned through for sense, typos etc, and attach some comments. We agreed on the call just now the following process: 1. Await the expiry of your deadline for comments (I think it was this Friday) 2. You are authorised then to sign off, and let Olof have the final version for publication. Look forward to hearing the results. Kind regards Emily On 6 July 2011 05:12, Smith, Bill wrote: > It's late for me, but I want to state my objection to considering those who > "consume domain names" as consumers. I do not believe that was Strickling's > intention. > > On Jul 5, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Hi Lynn and All who worked on this important RFP, > It looks great, but after working closely with ICANN Staff and a Working > Group to redesign 3 other Whois Studies (the ones recently approved), I > think we may be leaving too much too broad for the companies we seek to work > with. > > Consistent with these other surveys, I propose that we identify the > existence of proxy and privacy services -- as this should not come as a > surprise to them. (We may even want to include more detail that I have > added.) > > In addition, I think we should clearly lay out the two definitions of > consumer trust which have been presented to us again and again (starting > with Larry Strickling): privacy (consumer trust as the trust of the domain > name consumer, the registrant) and accountability (consumer trust as the > trust of the 3rd party [of many groups] seeking Whois data for investigative > and research purposes. > > Short edits proposed and attached. > Great thanks, > Kathy > Attachment (edits should be visible through track changes, if not, please > let me know!) > > Dear All, > Attached is a copy of the final draft of the RFP for Consumer Trust > research. > I am ready to release this on Friday so want to give everyone on the team > an opportunity > for a quick review before our conference call tomorrow. > > Thanks to everyone who contributed to this, particularly Sarmad and Kim. > We also received some valuable suggestions from Denise Michel and Liz > Gasster. > > The companies we have identified so far for the RFP include (in > alphabetical order): > > BCG > Comscore > Consumer Insights Practice > Iconoculture, Inc. > IDC > OTX > SIS International Research > User Insight > > We have set up an email address for responses that will be directed to a > list including Olaf Nordling, > Sarmad, Kim, Emily and me. Please speak up if you would like to be added > to that list. > > Kind regards, > Lynn Goodendorf > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > kked.doc>_______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > PLEASE NOTE: from 30 June 2011 my contact details have changed (see below). [image: Emily Taylor Consultancy - Internet Governance] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/cfcf5e28/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Final Draft RFP Whois Consumer Trust research_5July2011 kk__ed-2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38400 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/cfcf5e28/FinalDraftRFPWhoisConsumerTrustresearch_5July2011kk__ed-2.doc From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Jul 6 11:34:24 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 04:34:24 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] July/August 2011 - Will you be offline? Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, In the A.O.B section of the call, Members asked that a page on the private wiki be created for holiday dates. Please go to https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Summer+2011+-+Vacation and provide your details. Enjoy the Summer! Kind regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/0d20d67c/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Jul 6 11:40:27 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 04:40:27 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Note Pod Content from call In-Reply-To: <10435793.29679.1309952086778.JavaMail.breezesvc@pacna7app03> Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, For your convenience, please find below the content of the note pod. Kindly note that this is not the preliminary report of the conference call. Thanks, Very best Alice ------ AGENDA 1. Adopt agenda 2. Report of Singapore meeting 3. Brainstorming session - Recommendations (All - to bring 3 recommendations. Those unable to join, please circulate in advance of the call). 4. RFP update (Lynn) 5. Assignment of individuals to draft sections of report (any comments, or queries) 6. Circulating comments from stakeholder meetings (all) 7. Update on ALAC vacancy due to resignation of Olivier Iteanu. 8. AOB PARTICIPANTS: Michael, Peter, Sharon, Olof, Kathy, Emily APOLOGIES: Bill, Susan, Omar, Kim, Sarmad, James NOTES 1. Agenda adopted 2. Preliminary Report adopted 3. Recommendations (SL): should be standards to simplify WHOIS look-up/find WHOIS data, WHOIS check costs should be borne by the registrants and be realistic (price of domain name should go up)- apply offline principles to online business (PN): should be principles which apply to online world + more active/effective compliance by ICANN - privacy/proxy issues (ET): applying offline principles, getting more currency, new medium - principles that translate very well from online world - 1. develop a state of policy which balances needs of stakeholders 2. ensure that policy and implementation take account of privacy/proxy services appropriately 3. in place of annual registry, work with registrars to develop metrics for WHOIS accuracy implementation - improvement of implementation (KK): ICANN WHOIS policy should be clear unambigious and posted for review. icann should put together a list of applicable laws - no single person/place responsible for speaking/monitoring processes in place. helpful for community outside to know. a) The Whois Policy of ICANN should be clear, unambiguous, and posted for all to review b) That ICANN put together a list of the "applicable laws" so there is a common sense and knowledge of them c) Currently ICANN seems to have no single person or place responsible for speaking and monitoring the multiple Whois processes -- and one person would make the process of monitoring and supporting the various Whois processes much easier and clearer for the ICANN communities and for communities outside of ICANN. Conclusion - More analysis on paper and organize recommendations into 2 buckets: 1. Issues on which people are agreeing 2. contentious issues A. non-contentious (SK) 1 + 2 + 3 B. contentious (KVA) 1 A - B too restrictive - additional categories are: Privacy proxy access to information: (KVA) 3 - (OK) 1 + 2 + 3 Data accuracy and implementation: (KVA) 2 - High degree of converging (KK) - (ET) - (ON) - to create bundles of different issues - this will help identify overlaps. Creation of document that can revisit. 4. RfP (KK)'s suggestion: clarify 2 definitions of consumer trust the Team has been working on -- part of background briefing (LG) open for comment until Friday, 8 July - Lynn to finalize/issues the document. Thanks, Lynn! 5. Assignments (ET)'s proposal circulated via email - (SL)'s need for guidance on what has been done so far on applicable laws - producers/maintainers - comments/activities (ET) encourages to review stakeholders' comments 6. ALAC representative 7. AOB Holidays - (ET) back beginning of August Private wiki page on holiday dates to be created -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/021156c0/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Wed Jul 6 12:13:38 2011 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 05:13:38 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Follow up to the call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F8515940B8@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi Emily, 1. Sure, will try to get it out later today, collating the suggestions per theme, and send to you and Kathy 2. Will do. 3. Open for Sharon's requests. 4. Already set up, see Alice's email. All the best Olof From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:19 PM To: Olof Nordling Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org; Alice Jansen Subject: Follow up to the call Hi Olof Many thanks for taking on the follow up work while Alice is on holiday. These are the tasks I think we just agreed: 1. Please would you do a first pass on "bundling" the recommendations into related issues. Kathy and I can then review 2. Please would you liaise with Lynn who has the RT's authority to sign off the RFP once the deadline for comments has expired. I noticed a couple of typos, so would be grateful if you could also do a final proofread (I think you became Olaf again ;-)) 3. Alice has kindly forwarded links to documents on Applicable Laws and Producers/Maintainers to Sharon. Please would you follow up with Sharon if she has any further requests or would like to set up calls with those involved in the subteams covering those issues. 4. We would like to have a note of people's availability over the coming holiday period (Northern Hemisphere). This would be on the private wiki. Please would you organise this. Kind regards Emily PLEASE NOTE: from 30 June 2011 my contact details have changed (see below). [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/fe072cde/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Jul 6 15:51:40 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:51:40 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction Message-ID: Dear RT, some news that could impact somehow our study and work. Best, Omar http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2083906/claims-com-net-websites-jurisdiction US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction Sees an Internet without borders By Lawrence Latif Mon Jul 04 2011, 15:53 THE US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) wants to take down web sites that use the .com and .net top level domains (TLD) regardless of whether their servers are based in the US. Erik Barnett, assistant deputy director of ICE said told the Guardian that the agency will actively target web sites that are breaking US copyright laws even if their servers are not based in the US. According to Barnett, all web sites that use the .com and .net TLDs are fair game and that, since the Domain Name Service (DNS) indexes for those web sites are routed through the US-based registry Versign, ICE believes it has enough to "seek a US prosecution". According to the Guardian, ICE is not focusing its efforts just on web sites that stream dodgy content but those that link to them, something the newspaper claims has "considerable doubt as to whether this is even illegal in Britain". It points out that the only such case to have been heard by a judge in the UK was dismissed. Barnett said, "By definition, almost all copyright infringement and trademark violation is transnational. There's very little purely domestic intellectual property theft." However Barnett's claim that because Verisign is the registry for .com and .net TLDs that gives ICE jurisdiction over servers based in foreign countries seems tenuous at best. Nevertheless he said, "Without wishing to get into the particulars of any case, the general goal of law enforcement is to arrest and prosecute individuals who are committing crimes. That is our goal, our mission. The idea is to try to prosecute." Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group told the Guardian, "This seems absurd [...] if you don't have some idea that there's a single jurisdiction in which you can be prosecuted for copyright infringement that means you're potentially opening an individual to dozens of prosecutions." ICE is most probably banking on expectations that those it accuses of sharing copyrighted content won't be able to afford a legal team to question its claim that its jurisdiction extends beyond US borders. From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Jul 6 10:12:15 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 06:12:15 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adding 3 more thoughts Message-ID: <4E1434FF.7020604@kathykleiman.com> I would like to add a few more thoughts on recommendations (thrilled if I am repeating recommendations of others): a) The the Whois Policy of ICANN should be clear, unambiguous, and posted for all to review b) That ICANN put together a list of the "applicable laws" so there is a common sense and knowledge of them c) Currently ICANN seems to have no single person or place responsible for speaking and monitoring the multiple Whois processes -- and one person would make the process of monitoring and supporting the various Whois processes much easier and clearer for the ICANN communities and for communities outside of ICANN. Best, Kathy From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Jul 6 10:25:47 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 06:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Adding 3 more thoughts = resending Message-ID: <4E14382B.5010403@kathykleiman.com> Resending to all -- Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Adding 3 more thoughts Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 06:12:15 -0400 From: Kathy Kleiman To: rt4-whois at icann.org I would like to add a few more thoughts on recommendations (thrilled if I am repeating recommendations of others): a) The the Whois Policy of ICANN should be clear, unambiguous, and posted for all to review b) That ICANN put together a list of the "applicable laws" so there is a common sense and knowledge of them c) Currently ICANN seems to have no single person or place responsible for speaking and monitoring the multiple Whois processes -- and one person would make the process of monitoring and supporting the various Whois processes much easier and clearer for the ICANN communities and for communities outside of ICANN. Best, Kathy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/06b8b708/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Jul 6 19:42:53 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:42:53 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research Message-ID: <20110706124253.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.9f4b212d9f.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110706/53565f62/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Jul 6 21:30:54 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:30:54 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: <20110706084347.GA10984@belenus.iks-jena.de> References: <20110706084347.GA10984@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: Interesting, so privacy/proxy are alowed (fact). Not collecting and publishing personal data equals in what? Another level of privacy protection? I believe the general rule is to publicize all. The exception are the proxies, and having only a finantial reason (to pay for this service to have more "privacy") is the real gap. It's different from having a motivation to hide personal data - making the levels of protection, if it's the reason - more slippery and subjected to colateral damages, as subjective responsability. Omar 2011/7/6 Lutz Donnerhacke : > > I do oppose any proxy/privacy services while maintaining the whois requirement. > Either the data is required or proxy services are allowed. Both approaches > conflict in practice. > > If proxy/privacy services are allowed, whois services should not collect and > publish personal data (of at least owner and admin) anymore. > From lutz at iks-jena.de Thu Jul 7 07:07:23 2011 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:07:23 +0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20110706084347.GA10984@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: <20110707070723.GB6326@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 06:30:54PM -0300, Omar Kaminski wrote: > Interesting, so privacy/proxy are alowed (fact). Not collecting and > publishing personal data equals in what? Another level of privacy > protection? Accepting the consequences for everybody means to remove whois services at all. While iterating though the use cases of whois, it might result in a restart of such a service to easily obtain the registry database information (for domains consisting of: ace-name, nameservers, DNSSEC, contract party, domain status, change history). The existance of the contract party reference can be used to insist on a redirectable whois service at the contract party site (usually the registar and then the resellers in the chain down to the customer). This way Whois would contain only directly validateable, contractual information, which can be used by law enforcement. The operator of each Whois service is direct responsible for correct entries, because those entries are derived from its direct business cont(r)acts. The usual (non LEA) user automatically follow the whois chain and can obtain the necessary information from the final server, if this access is granted by national laws (of the final Whois operator). This way the applicable laws of data collection and protection even in the light of LEA access (cross-national?) can be fullfilled without knowing all those laws in advance. From omar at kaminski.adv.br Thu Jul 7 15:07:08 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:07:08 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: <20110707070723.GB6326@belenus.iks-jena.de> References: <20110706084347.GA10984@belenus.iks-jena.de> <20110707070723.GB6326@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: So we must admit that any final server (registrars) are contratual covered by national laws.Perhaps, but most probably not. Also, cross-national norms should be covered by International Conventions and/or Treaties to be granted (in less time). For a transborder court order, Brazil takes at least 6 months to a year (or more) just to answer and then start the process itself. Omar 2011/7/7 Lutz Donnerhacke : > > The usual (non LEA) user automatically follow the whois chain and can obtain > the necessary information from the final server, if this access is granted > by national laws (of the final Whois operator). This way the applicable laws > of data collection and protection even in the light of LEA access > (cross-national?) can be fullfilled without knowing all those laws in > advance. > > From lutz at iks-jena.de Thu Jul 7 15:48:55 2011 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:48:55 +0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20110706084347.GA10984@belenus.iks-jena.de> <20110707070723.GB6326@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: <20110707154855.GA14928@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 12:07:08PM -0300, Omar Kaminski wrote: > So we must admit that any final server (registrars) are contratual > covered by national laws. Perhaps, but most probably not. Of course they are covered by national law. Otherwise the operating company would not exist in this country. Please note, that I do not stop at the registrar level but got down the reselling chain. > Also, cross-national norms should be covered by International > Conventions and/or Treaties to be granted (in less time). > > For a transborder court order, Brazil takes at least 6 months to a > year (or more) just to answer and then start the process itself. Whois services are not a short cut for inefficient legal processes. If they are used to circument such legal preconditions, the whole system of Whois services should be considered as illegal itself. From susank at fb.com Fri Jul 8 00:03:09 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 00:03:09 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research In-Reply-To: <20110706124253.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.9f4b212d9f.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20110706124253.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.9f4b212d9f.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi Lynn, I have one addition to the RFP under section 4.1 Statement of Suitablility Disclose and describe any business relationship or association with ICANN, a registry, a registrar or proxy service provider. It would be helpful if the research company that we choose understands WHOIS but it is important for the team to know if there is a preexisting relationship with any of the above entities. Hope I made it in under the deadline! Susan From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:43 PM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research Thank you Emily! And apologize to all that I had to miss the call this morning. I'll proceed as outlined in your message below and coordinate with Olaf. Kind regards, Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research From: Emily Taylor > Date: Wed, July 06, 2011 7:28 am To: lynn > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Dear Lynn Thank you for sterling work on this RFP. I just scanned through for sense, typos etc, and attach some comments. We agreed on the call just now the following process: 1. Await the expiry of your deadline for comments (I think it was this Friday) 2. You are authorised then to sign off, and let Olof have the final version for publication. Look forward to hearing the results. Kind regards Emily On 6 July 2011 05:12, Smith, Bill > wrote: It's late for me, but I want to state my objection to considering those who "consume domain names" as consumers. I do not believe that was Strickling's intention. On Jul 5, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi Lynn and All who worked on this important RFP, It looks great, but after working closely with ICANN Staff and a Working Group to redesign 3 other Whois Studies (the ones recently approved), I think we may be leaving too much too broad for the companies we seek to work with. Consistent with these other surveys, I propose that we identify the existence of proxy and privacy services -- as this should not come as a surprise to them. (We may even want to include more detail that I have added.) In addition, I think we should clearly lay out the two definitions of consumer trust which have been presented to us again and again (starting with Larry Strickling): privacy (consumer trust as the trust of the domain name consumer, the registrant) and accountability (consumer trust as the trust of the 3rd party [of many groups] seeking Whois data for investigative and research purposes. Short edits proposed and attached. Great thanks, Kathy Attachment (edits should be visible through track changes, if not, please let me know!) Dear All, Attached is a copy of the final draft of the RFP for Consumer Trust research. I am ready to release this on Friday so want to give everyone on the team an opportunity for a quick review before our conference call tomorrow. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this, particularly Sarmad and Kim. We also received some valuable suggestions from Denise Michel and Liz Gasster. The companies we have identified so far for the RFP include (in alphabetical order): BCG Comscore Consumer Insights Practice Iconoculture, Inc. IDC OTX SIS International Research User Insight We have set up an email address for responses that will be directed to a list including Olaf Nordling, Sarmad, Kim, Emily and me. Please speak up if you would like to be added to that list. Kind regards, Lynn Goodendorf _______________________________________________ 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 PLEASE NOTE: from 30 June 2011 my contact details have changed (see below). [Emily Taylor Consultancy - Internet Governance] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110708/4631acd3/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Fri Jul 8 00:10:29 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 00:10:29 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research In-Reply-To: References: <20110706124253.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.9f4b212d9f.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <2139419224-1310083831-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1756298341-@b5.c9.bise6.blackberry> Thanks Susan! Agree and will add. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Susan Kawaguchi Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 00:03:09 To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research Hi Lynn, I have one addition to the RFP under section 4.1 Statement of Suitablility Disclose and describe any business relationship or association with ICANN, a registry, a registrar or proxy service provider. It would be helpful if the research company that we choose understands WHOIS but it is important for the team to know if there is a preexisting relationship with any of the above entities. Hope I made it in under the deadline! Susan From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:43 PM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research Thank you Emily! And apologize to all that I had to miss the call this morning. I'll proceed as outlined in your message below and coordinate with Olaf. Kind regards, Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research From: Emily Taylor > Date: Wed, July 06, 2011 7:28 am To: lynn > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Dear Lynn Thank you for sterling work on this RFP. I just scanned through for sense, typos etc, and attach some comments. We agreed on the call just now the following process: 1. Await the expiry of your deadline for comments (I think it was this Friday) 2. You are authorised then to sign off, and let Olof have the final version for publication. Look forward to hearing the results. Kind regards Emily On 6 July 2011 05:12, Smith, Bill > wrote: It's late for me, but I want to state my objection to considering those who "consume domain names" as consumers. I do not believe that was Strickling's intention. On Jul 5, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi Lynn and All who worked on this important RFP, It looks great, but after working closely with ICANN Staff and a Working Group to redesign 3 other Whois Studies (the ones recently approved), I think we may be leaving too much too broad for the companies we seek to work with. Consistent with these other surveys, I propose that we identify the existence of proxy and privacy services -- as this should not come as a surprise to them. (We may even want to include more detail that I have added.) In addition, I think we should clearly lay out the two definitions of consumer trust which have been presented to us again and again (starting with Larry Strickling): privacy (consumer trust as the trust of the domain name consumer, the registrant) and accountability (consumer trust as the trust of the 3rd party [of many groups] seeking Whois data for investigative and research purposes. Short edits proposed and attached. Great thanks, Kathy Attachment (edits should be visible through track changes, if not, please let me know!) Dear All, Attached is a copy of the final draft of the RFP for Consumer Trust research. I am ready to release this on Friday so want to give everyone on the team an opportunity for a quick review before our conference call tomorrow. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this, particularly Sarmad and Kim. We also received some valuable suggestions from Denise Michel and Liz Gasster. The companies we have identified so far for the RFP include (in alphabetical order): BCG Comscore Consumer Insights Practice Iconoculture, Inc. IDC OTX SIS International Research User Insight We have set up an email address for responses that will be directed to a list including Olaf Nordling, Sarmad, Kim, Emily and me. Please speak up if you would like to be added to that list. Kind regards, Lynn Goodendorf _______________________________________________ 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 PLEASE NOTE: from 30 June 2011 my contact details have changed (see below). [Emily Taylor Consultancy - Internet Governance] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110708/20738041/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri Jul 8 08:42:18 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 01:42:18 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Translation of Discussion Paper Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Just dropping a line to inform you that translations of your discussion paper into the 5 UN languages were recently posted on the ICANN website: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whoisrt-discussion-paper-09jun11-en.htm Thanks, Kind regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110708/db4ad9cd/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Fri Jul 8 12:34:02 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 05:34:02 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Final Draft RFP Message-ID: <20110708053402.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.3971c368e7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110708/8392d7dc/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Final Draft RFP Whois Consumer Trust research_8July2011.doc Type: application/msword application Size: 35328 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110708/8392d7dc/FinalDraftRFPWhoisConsumerTrustresearch_8July2011.doc From olof.nordling at icann.org Fri Jul 8 12:42:14 2011 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 05:42:14 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Final Draft RFP In-Reply-To: <20110708053402.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.3971c368e7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20110708053402.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.3971c368e7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F851594928@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Lynn and all, FYI, I have requested a modified email address for the announcement: rfp-whois-cons-trust at icann.org , trusting that will be granted and established well in time for our posting. Best regards Olof From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 2:34 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Final Draft RFP Dear All, Attached is a copy of the Final Draft of the RFP for WHOIS Consumer Trust research. It has been updated to reflect suggestions from ICANN staff which is greatly appreciated. Note that we are making a slight change to the reply email address on the RFP to include the word "WHOIS" and that will be edited. If there are any further comments, please send them today. We plan to release the RFP on Monday. Regards, Lynn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110708/b4d0315d/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Fri Jul 8 21:12:06 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:12:06 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP ready to issue Message-ID: <20110708141206.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.4b41dfbcd4.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110708/e01ec3f0/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RFP Whois Consumer Trust research_8July2011.doc Type: application/msword application Size: 35840 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110708/e01ec3f0/RFPWhoisConsumerTrustresearch_8July2011.doc From emily at emilytaylor.eu Sat Jul 9 07:09:16 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:09:16 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP ready to issue In-Reply-To: <20110708141206.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.4b41dfbcd4.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20110708141206.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.4b41dfbcd4.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear Lynn Many thanks for your work and dedication to this task. Kind regards Emily On 8 July 2011 22:12, wrote: > Dear All, > Attached is a copy of the RFP with final changes and edits made. > Susan's proposed addition has been added in Section 4. > Thanks to everyone who contributed their thoughts, helped with > proofreading, edits and > suggestions. > > As a next step, I will coordinate with Olof to get this published on the > ICANN website and > begin distributing the RFP to the list of companies identified as > prospective service providers. > > Best regards, > Lynn > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > -- PLEASE NOTE: from 30 June 2011 my contact details have changed (see below). * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110709/c4db0d24/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Sun Jul 10 19:15:56 2011 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:15:56 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] RFP posted Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7F851594DB7@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Review Team Members, FYI, the RFP is now posted, see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-10jul11-en.htm All the best Olof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110710/aecc5688/attachment.html