From jbladel at godaddy.com  Mon Sep 19 12:56:45 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:56:45 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Implementation Chapter (Draft)
Message-ID: <20110919055645.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.da1a675a24.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110919/f6963870/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RT4 Chapter- Version 09-19.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 546304 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110919/f6963870/RT4Chapter-Version09-19.doc 

From sharonchallis at aol.com  Mon Sep 19 19:53:51 2011
From: sharonchallis at aol.com (Sharon Lemon)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:53:51 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: WHOIS Review Group Briefingf - DNS Abuse Examples
References: <0C5E126EEC9B5C44A69571E67208108F01E5C55E4F37@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>
Message-ID: <EF0B0122-705E-408B-A22C-35D649C1B4C4@aol.com>

Thought you all might find this interesting.

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "FLAHERTY, Jonathan" <jonathan.flaherty at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>
> Date: 16 September 2011 07:54:48 PDT
> To: "FLAHERTY, Jonathan" <jonathan.flaherty at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>,  "'sharonchallis at aol.com'" <sharonchallis at aol.com>, "MILES, Lee"  <lee.miles at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>
> Cc: "TIBBS, Mark" <mark.tibbs at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>, "KIBBEY, Gary"  <gary.kibbey at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>
> Subject: RE: WHOIS Review Group Briefingf - DNS Abuse Examples
> 

> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
> 
> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED  
>  
> Hi Sharon,  
>  
> Please ignore the previous email, as Mark pointed out its a very old version !!.
>  
> Please find attached a brief report on the registrant WHOIS abuse of the DNS in relation to what Cyber have seen this year across our main area of activity. 
>  
> Also listed in the report is planned ALERT reporting process to ICANN for your reference.  
>  
> If you need anything more from me such as some more examples please do not hesitate to contact me.  
>  
> Many thanks  
>  
>  Jon Flaherty | HVOM | SOCA Cyber & Forensics | 0207 855 2808 | 07919 218439 | jonathan.flaherty at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk
> 
> This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
> <Domain Name WHOIS Abuse - 16.09.11.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110919/15e7aa3d/attachment.html 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Mon Sep 19 23:05:24 2011
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:05:24 +0100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] New applicant guidebook - WHOIS requirements for us to
	consider
Message-ID: <CAKWYFscex5N8uXJ0f5SFZ2GzpB6qe=C6FFScuoYF1NMuLZ9v=w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone

Looking forward to our meeting tomorrow, and seeing you guys this evening.

The New Applicant Guidebook was published today
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-19sep11-en.htm

Take a look at Question Number 26 of the application form (see page A-19).
My question for the review team is this:

- the criteria for WHOIS are over and above those currently required, and to
some extent represent the wish list that the compliance team and others have
communicated to us
- Once the new gTLDs have run through, we will have 3 concurrent WHOIS
regimes in operation , ie the Thin WHOIS of .com and .net (100m domains),
Thick WHOIS of the other "old" gTLDs, and the gold plated WHOIS service for
new gTLDs.

My question for us is - how will these concurrent, differing systems impact
on consumers?  Will they understand what's required?  How will the
compliance effort cope with all these differing systems?

Kind regards

Emily

-- 




*
*

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/20110920/5158661d/attachment.html 

From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Mon Sep 19 23:13:38 2011
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:13:38 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] New applicant guidebook - WHOIS requirements for us
 to consider
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFscex5N8uXJ0f5SFZ2GzpB6qe=C6FFScuoYF1NMuLZ9v=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKWYFscex5N8uXJ0f5SFZ2GzpB6qe=C6FFScuoYF1NMuLZ9v=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD48TT98fYvtAkwOK=T86cYScBa1VRix7NuBtzB1VsE-rJMehA@mail.gmail.com>

And a new "hotsite" is due today:

http://newgtlds.icann.org/

Omar



2011/9/19 Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>

> Hi everyone
>
> Looking forward to our meeting tomorrow, and seeing you guys this evening.
>
> The New Applicant Guidebook was published today
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-19sep11-en.htm
>
> Take a look at Question Number 26 of the application form (see page A-19).
> My question for the review team is this:
>
> - the criteria for WHOIS are over and above those currently required, and
> to some extent represent the wish list that the compliance team and others
> have communicated to us
> - Once the new gTLDs have run through, we will have 3 concurrent WHOIS
> regimes in operation , ie the Thin WHOIS of .com and .net (100m domains),
> Thick WHOIS of the other "old" gTLDs, and the gold plated WHOIS service for
> new gTLDs.
>
> My question for us is - how will these concurrent, differing systems impact
> on consumers?  Will they understand what's required?  How will the
> compliance effort cope with all these differing systems?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110919/1a8cfe90/attachment.html 

From m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru  Tue Sep 20 01:01:44 2011
From: m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru (Mikhail Yakushev)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:01:44 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] New applicant guidebook - WHOIS requirements for us
 to	consider
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFscex5N8uXJ0f5SFZ2GzpB6qe=C6FFScuoYF1NMuLZ9v=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKWYFscex5N8uXJ0f5SFZ2GzpB6qe=C6FFScuoYF1NMuLZ9v=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA31284B43@M2EMBS1.mail.msk>

Dear Emily, colleagues,
- I would also add the fourth regime to Emily's list: the variety of cctld's with their own WHOIS procedures....
- I think we all need to reach a kind of consensus - which of three (or four) regimes should be treated as 'optimal' (recommended), and under which conditions (in which cirmumstances) the deviations from the optimal/recommended regime can be allowed/admitted. Let's discuss it tomorrow.
- I am sorry to apologize for not being able to attend today's dinner. I am already in MdR, but due to a terrible jet lag I need to have some rest after almost 14 hours in airspace without sleeping.
Rgds,
Michael
________________________________
From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Emily Taylor [emily at emilytaylor.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:05 AM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] New applicant guidebook - WHOIS requirements for us to consider

Hi everyone

Looking forward to our meeting tomorrow, and seeing you guys this evening.

The New Applicant Guidebook was published today http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-19sep11-en.htm

Take a look at Question Number 26 of the application form (see page A-19).  My question for the review team is this:

- the criteria for WHOIS are over and above those currently required, and to some extent represent the wish list that the compliance team and others have communicated to us
- Once the new gTLDs have run through, we will have 3 concurrent WHOIS regimes in operation , ie the Thin WHOIS of .com and .net (100m domains), Thick WHOIS of the other "old" gTLDs, and the gold plated WHOIS service for new gTLDs.

My question for us is - how will these concurrent, differing systems impact on consumers?  Will they understand what's required?  How will the compliance effort cope with all these differing systems?

Kind regards

Emily

--


   [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<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>

www.etlaw.co.uk<http://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/20110920/e191a13b/attachment.html 

From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Tue Sep 20 01:16:34 2011
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (kathy at kathykleiman.com)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:16:34 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Advice for Dakar
Message-ID: <1092.1316481394@kathykleiman.com>

 

	  BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Hi All, 

	Welcome to all arriving in MDR; hi to those who met informally this
afternoon (Sharon, Emily, Omar, Bill, Susan and me). We were talking
about Senegal travel, and I promised to circulate some advice I found
about arriving in Dakar to the Team.  

	See you tomorrow (or tonight for dinner). Best, Kathy 

	?(The following is from FLYERTALK about Dakar arrivals and shared
earlier among a list of regular ICANN attendees)
 When the plane arrives it parks on the tarmac, passengers descend
stairs and take a passenger bus to the terminal (which is nearby).
(Visit bathroom, get your airport necessities in order, etc. before
you land ) Visitors fill out the entry/exit /tourist forms and get
into the line to have health forms (especially Yellow Fever) checked.
Then ...you go to your right and after someone collects your "tourist"
form, you enter into the baggage area. Here you must be (and look)
alert for the rest of the airport process.
 Entry into the airport terminal from the Dakar side is pretty
tightly controlled, so usually the people in the baggage area have
some legitimate reason to be there - to help you and others. Get your
own cart. (It?s possible/likely that there will be some or many
legitimate porters who will give you a cart, help get you through
customs and get you transport. I try to do this stuff by myself. Use
your judgment, people may be genuinely helpful or up to "other"
business, in equally charming ways. You tip the person who helps you.
Collect your baggage (the sooner the better)).
 You'll bring your baggage to the scanners - lifting each piece on to
the conveyor belt or counter. Then the baggage goes through the
machine, you might have a chat with the customs person, and you are
done.
 At this point you are facing windows with people from hotels or
organizations holding up signs with the names of the people they are
meeting or the group who has sent someone to pick up people. If you
arrange for this service in advance (see below), your name/their
organization probably will appear. Or your pick up person will meet
you just outside the customs door which is to the right of the
windows (as you face the windows).
 If you are not being picked up, then here are your next steps: The
worst place in Dakar in my mind, is between the exit from the
baggage/customs area and the exit from the terminal just to the
right, and sitting down in a cab or van with all your luggage stowed.
Here among the usual crowd of people waiting, are slick, fast people
who are up to who -knows- what. People may push up against you, crowd
you, talk fast, etc. offering to change money (NO), get you a cab
(maybe). There will be crowds mainly behind some low barricades,
waiting for the arrival of their friends and relatives. There will be
others right outside the terminal door who are likely to be crowding
you, touching you; this is not what a normal polite Senegalese person
would do. And if/when it happens, be very alert and guard your stuff,
pockets, etc. Be alert, polite, quietly assertive, look like you have
your wits about you.
 So your job is to get that mode of transport and make sure you are
paying a fair fare to wherever you are going in Dakar -
downtown/Plateau, somewhere on the Corniche, outlying hotels? (Before
leaving home, ask someone on the Dakar end what that fare should be -
better yet, get them to pick you up ).
 Here is what I suggest doing if you are not having someone pick you
up: Ask your hotel, business, etc. to arrange pick up at airport for
you, providing you with the information you seek/need.
 Otherwise: You can check out the ACI Baobab Center. This is an
American nonprofit which does a variety of cross cultural and
educational programs for Senegalese/other West African and Americans,
Canadians, Europeans, etc. Google ACI Baobab to learn more.
 For a reasonable fee they will pick you up in their van or car or
one of their taxi partners and deposit you where you are going.
Someone will be at the airport (outside the baggage/customs area) to
meet you. You arrange this with ACI, ask them your questions in
advance, etc. Their service is especially helpful when it is time to
leave. If your flight is at 2 am, for example, you need to be at the
airport 2/3 hours in advance. Their van/taxi man will pick you up on
time (though I usually double check with ACI and the driver that you
are all squared away in advance) and get you to the departure area
easily.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110919/bb0fb5ac/attachment.html 

From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Tue Sep 20 02:03:37 2011
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (kathy at kathykleiman.com)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:03:37 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] The 4 GNSO Whois Studies - now underway
Message-ID: <1307.1316484217@kathykleiman.com>

 

	Hi All, 

	As you know, the GNSO is studying key Whois issues (on request from
GAC). Liz Gasster has been kind enough to send me the link to a
website that summarizes all four studies --
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/studies [1] -- and I am sure she
would be happy to answer qusetions about them.  

	Best, Kathy 

	----- some highlights -----
	Whois Misuse Study [2]. This study examines the extent to which
public Whois contact information for gTLD domain names is misused to
address harmful communications such a phishing or identity theft. The
Carnegie Mellon University Cylab [3] in Pittsburgh, PA, USA is
performing this study and expects to have initial results in late
2012. 

	To learn more about this study: click on the link above.
	Whois Registrant Identification Study [4]. This study uses Whois to
classify entities that register gTLD domain names, including natural
persons, legal persons, and Privacy/Proxy service providers. Using
associated Internet content, it then classifies entities using those
domains and potentially commercial activities. Contract negotiations
are underway to perform this study, with results expected mid 2012. 

	To learn more about this study: click on the link above.
	Whois Privacy and Proxy Services Abuse Study [5]. This study
examines the extent to which gTLD domain names used to conduct
illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via Privacy or
Proxy services to obscure the perpetrator's identity. Contract
negotiations are underway to perform this study, with results
expected late 2012. 

	To learn more about this study: click on the link above.
	Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay/Reveal Survey [6]. This survey will
determine the feasibility of conducting a future in-depth study into
communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for gTLD domain
names registered using Proxy and Privacy services. The Interisle
Consulting Group in Boston, MA, USA is performing this survey and
expects to have initial results late 2011. 

	To learn more about this study: Contact info at whois-survey.net [7].


Links:
------
[1] http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/studies
[2] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28sep09-en.htm
[3] http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/
[4]
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/tor-whois-registrant-id-studies-20may11-en.pdf
[5]
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm
[6]
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-feasibility-survey-28mar11-en.pdf
[7] mailto:info at whois-survey.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110919/85f00014/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 02:06:20 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:06:20 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Policy Review Team Meeting
Message-ID: <CA9D44C9.F1E3%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

I hope that you all had a smooth journey.

Please be kindly reminded that the meeting will be held at the Courtyard Marriott (Maxella Avenue 13480, Marina del Rey) - Palos Verde Room.

A light continental breakfast will be served tomorrow in our meeting room at 8:00 o'clock. According to the agenda (attached for your convenience), discussions will begin at 9:00.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or concerns.

Thanks,

Kindest regards

Alice




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110919/15cf1250/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WHOIS MEETING - MDR MEETING.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 58252 bytes
Desc: WHOIS MEETING - MDR MEETING.pdf
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110919/15cf1250/WHOISMEETING-MDRMEETING.pdf 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 03:59:00 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:59:00 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Announcement on ICANN website
Message-ID: <CA9D5F35.F201%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Just dropping a line to let you know that we have posted a note on the ICANN website to announce your meeting. Note in the meeting details: The Review Team may invoke the Chatham House Rule and enter into a closed session at any time.

Please go to: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19sep11-en.htm and https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Marina+del+Rey+Meeting for full reference.

Thanks,

Kindest regards

Alie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110919/25e064b3/attachment.html 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Tue Sep 20 12:17:54 2011
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:17:54 +0100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] New applicant guidebook - WHOIS requirements for us
 to consider
In-Reply-To: <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA31284B43@M2EMBS1.mail.msk>
References: <CAKWYFscex5N8uXJ0f5SFZ2GzpB6qe=C6FFScuoYF1NMuLZ9v=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA31284B43@M2EMBS1.mail.msk>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFsd7SFYWz275mwuyYvc04ua+NNdz8hMtwOQF+iqQNp94HQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Michael

Thanks for your message. Glad that you arrived safely, and not to worry at
all about yesterday evening - it's a terrible journey for you.

Just to let you all know, I have been in contact with CENTR, which has
promised to share with the Review Team some of its anonymised survey data on
the prevalence of opt-outs, and (hopefully) how opted out data is shared
with those with a legitimate reason for asking for it.

Another point, you'll recall that one commentator during our open session in
Singapore praised the WHOIS policy of TELNIC, saying that he had never had a
complaint from a customer about it, and that law enforcement liked it too.
I attach the policy, which is short, and an easy read.

Kind regards

Emily

On 20 September 2011 02:01, Mikhail Yakushev <m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru>wrote:

>  Dear Emily, colleagues,
> - I would also add the fourth regime to Emily's list: the variety of
> cctld's with their own WHOIS procedures....
> - I think we all need to reach a kind of consensus - which of three (or
> four) regimes should be treated as 'optimal' (recommended), and under which
> conditions (in which cirmumstances) the deviations from the
> optimal/recommended regime can be allowed/admitted. Let's discuss it
> tomorrow.
> - I am sorry to apologize for not being able to attend today's dinner. I am
> already in MdR, but due to a terrible jet lag I need to have some rest after
> almost 14 hours in airspace without sleeping.
> Rgds,
> Michael
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] on
> behalf of Emily Taylor [emily at emilytaylor.eu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:05 AM
> *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] New applicant guidebook - WHOIS requirements for us
> to consider
>
>  Hi everyone
>
> Looking forward to our meeting tomorrow, and seeing you guys this evening.
>
> The New Applicant Guidebook was published today
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-19sep11-en.htm
>
> Take a look at Question Number 26 of the application form (see page A-19).
> My question for the review team is this:
>
> - the criteria for WHOIS are over and above those currently required, and
> to some extent represent the wish list that the compliance team and others
> have communicated to us
> - Once the new gTLDs have run through, we will have 3 concurrent WHOIS
> regimes in operation , ie the Thin WHOIS of .com and .net (100m domains),
> Thick WHOIS of the other "old" gTLDs, and the gold plated WHOIS service for
> new gTLDs.
>
> My question for us is - how will these concurrent, differing systems impact
> on consumers?  Will they understand what's required?  How will the
> compliance effort cope with all these differing systems?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
>
> 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.
>
>


-- 




*
*

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/20110920/9260ba81/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Whois_Policy TELNIC.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 186500 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/9260ba81/Whois_PolicyTELNIC.pdf 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Tue Sep 20 13:00:17 2011
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:00:17 +0100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: CENTR WHOIS data
In-Reply-To: <00da01cc73bb$e13bc110$a3b34330$@org>
References: <Acxzu+Brqj6fWi+zS0uR6MJ3ax1C6g==>
	<00da01cc73bb$e13bc110$a3b34330$@org>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFsf5hn3Qb2B6Cm2GiP7zfyRnTtq1mYGkrov0Fq8p6hgFGg@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

CENTR has promised to share some WHOIS data with us.  They have also said
that one of their newest surveys deals with the circumstances in which opted
out WHOIS data is shared with third parties.  This will not be ready for a
few weeks at least.  But I will share with you when we have the aggregated
data.

Kind regards

Emily

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patrick Myles <patrick at centr.org>
Date: 15 September 2011 16:27
Subject: CENTR WHOIS data
To: emily at emilytaylor.eu
Cc: Peter Van Roste <peter at centr.org>


Hi Emily ? ****

** **

Peter Van Roste asked me to give you an overview of data we have on WHOIS in
context of CENTR members. ****

** **

In November 2010, we launched a survey to the membership (25 ccTLDs
responded) which included questions on the following: ****

** **

**?         **The type of data which can be hidden in the WHOIS in cases of;
private persons, non-private persons****

**?         **How holders request to hide information in the WHOIS****

**?         **Numbers on the use of proxies to hide data****

** **

Previous to this survey, another survey on WHOIS took place in late 2009
which focused on the more fundamental aspects of WHOIS ? technical barriers
(CAPTCHA, limits on queries, type of WHOIS access (website/command
line/other), misuse of WHOIS from third parties, etc.  ****

** **

Aggregate use of the data is a possibility.  We would of course in this case
appreciate being cited as well as knowing in advance the intended use of the
data.   ****

** **

Hope this helps, ****

** **

Best Regards****

** **

*[image: cid:image001.jpg at 01CC7227.E27EBEF0]***

*Patrick Myles***

*Information Manager*

**
*** *


*CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium***

*tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 *

*www.centr.org** **? twitter: centrnews***

* *

** **

** **



-- 




*
*

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/20110920/7791ac21/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1955 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/7791ac21/attachment.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/7791ac21/attachment.png 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 13:21:34 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:21:34 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adobe Connect Room
Message-ID: <CA9DE30E.F21A%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please join the Adobe Connect Room<http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/> during the session.

Thanks!

Kindest regards

Alice



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/a65ff8ae/attachment.html 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Tue Sep 20 14:00:55 2011
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:00:55 +0100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance - gaps and recommendations
Message-ID: <CAKWYFscijJa7mtevTD6=ohPuxkOpXV+0-dNLxzAQCmWEyuyipQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys

I've been awake for a while, and have started to pull together gaps and
recommendations on compliance for today's discussions.  I have not got as
far as the feedback from stakeholders section (covering Registry/Registrar
meeting and the visit to MdR, as I need to spend more time studying the
transcript of our Singapore meetings).

However, this should be enough to get our discussions started today.  Excuse
typos.

Best,

Emily

-- 




*
*

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/20110920/660f3898/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Compliance ? Gaps and Recommendations.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 112954 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/660f3898/windows-1252QCompliance_96_Gaps_and_Recommendations2Edocx.docx 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Tue Sep 20 14:45:08 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:45:08 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance - gaps and recommendations
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFscijJa7mtevTD6=ohPuxkOpXV+0-dNLxzAQCmWEyuyipQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKWYFscijJa7mtevTD6=ohPuxkOpXV+0-dNLxzAQCmWEyuyipQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1784826949-1316529909-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1970426323-@b5.c9.bise6.blackberry>

Thanks Emily!  This will help us get off to a productive start.
See you shortly.
Lynn
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:00:55 
To: <rt4-whois at icann.org>
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance - gaps and recommendations

_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois





From sharonchallis at aol.com  Tue Sep 20 15:17:45 2011
From: sharonchallis at aol.com (Sharon Lemon)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:17:45 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: WHOIS Review Group Briefingf - DNS Abuse Examples
References: <0C5E126EEC9B5C44A69571E67208108F01E5C55E4F37@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>
Message-ID: <BE3E97BE-55E9-430F-8D1F-2FFF0104D4BE@aol.com>

With the attachment now

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "FLAHERTY, Jonathan" <jonathan.flaherty at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>
> Date: 16 September 2011 07:54:48 PDT
> To: "FLAHERTY, Jonathan" <jonathan.flaherty at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>,  "'sharonchallis at aol.com'" <sharonchallis at aol.com>, "MILES, Lee"  <lee.miles at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>
> Cc: "TIBBS, Mark" <mark.tibbs at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>, "KIBBEY, Gary"  <gary.kibbey at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>
> Subject: RE: WHOIS Review Group Briefingf - DNS Abuse Examples
> 

> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
> 
> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED  
>  
> Hi Sharon,  
>  
> Please ignore the previous email, as Mark pointed out its a very old version !!.
>  
> Please find attached a brief report on the registrant WHOIS abuse of the DNS in relation to what Cyber have seen this year across our main area of activity. 
>  
> Also listed in the report is planned ALERT reporting process to ICANN for your reference.  
>  
> If you need anything more from me such as some more examples please do not hesitate to contact me.  
>  
> Many thanks  
>  
>  Jon Flaherty | HVOM | SOCA Cyber & Forensics | 0207 855 2808 | 07919 218439 | jonathan.flaherty at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk
> 
> This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/ff24ca2b/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Domain Name WHOIS Abuse - 16.09.11.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 577536 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/ff24ca2b/DomainNameWHOISAbuse-16.09.11.doc 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/ff24ca2b/attachment-0001.html 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 16:36:17 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:36:17 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] 2009 RAA adoption figures
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQFSOavYbZmTVqZ-DJjfJtQCRqP2RNfoK5p0e45-G7X7bQ@mail.gmail.com>

Currently, 895 Registrars out of 991 (90.31%) have adopted the 2009 RAA.
 This represents 130,223,060 domains (96.94%) under the 2009 agreement.

Regards,
Denise

Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/5a7d74ac/attachment.html 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 17:37:53 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:37:53 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Thick vs. Thin Whois background
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQE5OKrbQfnNoY9cnrw0kS-+KpyFrCW2LYt4AMBHy6FFcg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Team members:

Regarding the questions raised this morning about thick and thin whois
registries, useful background information can be found in this document:

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/thick-thin-whois-30may09-en.pdf

Please let me know if you need more.

Regards,
Denise

Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/0bfbaf25/attachment.html 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 17:52:14 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:52:14 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQFxG0op4eX4CC_1GMmh+2ZR_+S7GP_W3wW9p_9fMfMqQQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Team members:

To follow-up on a question raised this morning -- the?"ICANN Procedure
For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law" doesn't impose any
obligations on registrars and is referred to as a "procedure" as it is
not a policy that registrars are contractually obligated to implement.

The GNSO concluded a policy development process on the establishment
of a procedure and in 2006 ICANN's Board adopted the policy and
directed ICANN staff to issue a conflicts procedure.   While the
procedure includes possible actions for the affected gTLD
registry/registrar, this procedure does not impose any new obligations
on registries/registrars.  The procedure can be found here:

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm

Please let me know if you need more information.

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



From denise.michel at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 18:03:51 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:03:51 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy
	Laws
In-Reply-To: <CAPcHvQFxG0op4eX4CC_1GMmh+2ZR_+S7GP_W3wW9p_9fMfMqQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPcHvQFxG0op4eX4CC_1GMmh+2ZR_+S7GP_W3wW9p_9fMfMqQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQEQpP+NV7P7cP9FNQZhAE6FESz-FFXEE_2tgvJaWBd2qQ@mail.gmail.com>

The link I provided (below) was for the draft procedure.  Here's the final
procedure in case you need it:

*Step One: Notification of Whois Proceeding*

1.1 At the earliest appropriate juncture on receiving notification of an
investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or
civil action that might affect its compliance with the provisions of the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (?RAA?) or other contractual agreement
with ICANN dealing with the collection, display or distribution of
personally identifiable data via WHOIS ("WHOIS Proceeding"), a
registrar/registry should provide ICANN staff with the following:

   - Summary description of the nature and status of the action (e.g.,
   inquiry, investigation, litigation, threat of sanctions, etc.) and a range
   of possible outcomes.
   - Contact information for the responsible official of the
   registrar/registry for resolving the problem.
   - If appropriate, contact information for the responsible territorial
   government agency or other claimant and a statement from the
   registrar/registry authorizing ICANN to communicate with those officials or
   claimants on the matter. If the registrar/registry is prevented by
   applicable law from granting such authorization, the notification should
   document this.
   - The text of the applicable law or regulations upon which the local
   government or other claimant is basing its action or investigation, if such
   information has been indicated by the government or other claimant.
   - Description of efforts undertaken to meet the requirements of both
   local law and obligations to ICANN.

1.2 Meeting the notification requirement permits registrars/registries to
participate in investigations and respond to court orders, regulations, or
enforcement authorities in a manner and course deemed best by their counsel.

1.3 Depending on the specific circumstances of the WHOIS Proceeding, the
registrar/registry may request that ICANN keep all correspondence between
the parties confidential pending the outcome of the WHOIS Proceeding. ICANN
will ordinarily respond favorably to such requests to the extent that they
can be accommodated with other legal responsibilities and basic principles
of transparency applicable to ICANN operations.

1.4 A registrar or registry that is subject to a WHOIS proceeding should
work cooperatively with the relevant national government to ensure that the
registrar or registry operates in conformity with domestic laws and
regulations, and international law and applicable international conventions.

*Step Two: Consultation*

2.1 The goal of the consultation process should be to seek to resolve the
problem in a manner that preserves the ability of the registrar/registry to
comply with its contractual WHOIS obligations to the greatest extent
possible.

2.1.1 Unless impractical under the circumstances, upon receipt and review of
the notification, ICANN will consult with the registrar/registry. Where
appropriate under the circumstances, ICANN will consult with the
local/national enforcement authorities or other claimant together with the
registrar/registry.

2.1.2 Pursuant to advice from ICANN?s Governmental Advisory Committee, ICANN
will request advice from the relevant national government on the authority
of the request for derogation from the ICANN WHOIS requirements.

2.2 If the WHOIS Proceeding ends without requiring any changes or the
required changes in registrar/registry practice do not, in the opinion of
ICANN, constitute a deviation from the RAA or other contractual obligation,
then ICANN and the registrar/registry need to take no further action.

2.3 If the registrar/registry is required by local law enforcement
authorities or a court to make changes in its practices affecting compliance
with WHOIS-related contractual obligations before any consultation process
can occur, the registrar/registry should promptly notify ICANN of the
changes made and the law/regulation upon which the action was based.

2.4 The registrar/registry may request that ICANN keep all correspondence
between the parties confidential pending the outcome of the WHOIS
Proceeding. ICANN will ordinarily respond favorably to such requests to the
extent that they can be accommodated with other legal responsibilities and
basic principles of transparency applicable to ICANN operations.

*Step Three: General Counsel Analysis and Recommendation*

3.1 If the WHOIS Proceeding requires changes (whether before, during or
after the consultation process described above) that, in the opinion of the
Office of ICANN?s General Counsel, prevent compliance with contractual WHOIS
obligations, ICANN staff may refrain, on a provisional basis, from taking
enforcement action against the registrar/registry for non-compliance, while
ICANN prepares a public report and recommendation and submits it to the
ICANN Board for a decision. Prior to release of the report to the public,
the registry/registrar may request that certain information (including, but
not limited to, communications between the registry/registrar and ICANN, or
other privileged/confidential information) be redacted from the report. The
General Counsel may redact such advice or information from any published
version of the report that relates to legal advice to ICANN or advice from
ICANN?s counsel that in the view of the General Counsel should be restricted
due to privileges or possible liability to ICANN. Such a report may contain:

   1. A summary of the law or regulation involved in the conflict;
   2. Specification of the part of the registry or registrar's contractual
   WHOIS obligations with which full compliance if being prevented;
   3. Summary of the consultation process if any under step two; and
   4. Recommendation of how the issue should be resolved, which may include
   whether ICANN should provide an exception for those registrars/registries to
   which the specific conflict applies from one or more identified WHOIS
   contractual provisions. The report should include a detailed justification
   of its recommendation, including the anticipated impact on the operational
   stability, reliability, security, or global interoperability of the
   Internet's unique identifier systems if the recommendation were to be
   approved or denied.

3.2 The registrar/registry will be provided a reasonable opportunity to
comment to the Board. The Registrar/Registry may request that ICANN keep
such report confidential prior to any resolution of the Board. ICANN will
ordinarily respond favorably to such requests to the extent that they can be
accommodated with other legal responsibilities and basic principles of
transparency applicable to ICANN operations.

*Step Four: Resolution*

4.1 Keeping in the mind the anticipated impact on the operational stability,
reliability, security, or global interoperability of the Internet's unique
identifier systems, the Board will consider and take appropriate action on
the recommendations contained in the General Counsel's report as soon as
practicable. Actions could include, but are not limited to:

   - Approving or rejecting the report's recommendations, with or without
   modifications;
   - Seeking additional information from the affected registrar/registry or
   third parties;
   - Scheduling a public comment period on the report; or
   - Referring the report to GNSO for its review and comment by a date
   certain.

*Step Five: Public Notice*

5.1 The Board's resolution of the issue, together with the General Counsel's
report, will ordinarily be made public and be archived on ICANN?s website
(along with other related materials) for future research. Prior to release
of such information to the public, the registry/registrar may request that
certain information (including, but not limited to, communications between
the registry/registrar and ICANN, or other privileged/confidential
information) be redacted from the public notice. The General Counsel may
redact such advice or information from any published version of the report
that relates to legal advice to ICANN or advice from ICANN?s counsel that in
the view of the General Counsel should be restricted due to privileges or
possible liability to ICANN. In the event that any redactions make it
difficult to convey to the public the nature of the actions being taken by
the registry/registrar, ICANN will work to provide appropriate notice to the
public describing the actions being taken and the justification for such
actions, as may be practicable under the circumstances.

5.2 Unless the Board decides otherwise, if the result of its resolution of
the issue is that data elements in the registry/registrar's WHOIS output
will be removed or made less accessible, ICANN will issue an appropriate
notice to the public of the resolution and of the reasons for ICANN's
forbearance from enforcement of full compliance with the contractual
provision in question.

*Step Six: Ongoing Review*

6.1 With substantial input from the relevant registries or registrars,
together with all constituencies, ICANN will review the effectiveness of the
process annually.


Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct



On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
wrote:
> Dear Team members:
>
> To follow-up on a question raised this morning -- the "ICANN Procedure
> For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law" doesn't impose any
> obligations on registrars and is referred to as a "procedure" as it is
> not a policy that registrars are contractually obligated to implement.
>
> The GNSO concluded a policy development process on the establishment
> of a procedure and in 2006 ICANN's Board adopted the policy and
> directed ICANN staff to issue a conflicts procedure.   While the
> procedure includes possible actions for the affected gTLD
> registry/registrar, this procedure does not impose any new obligations
> on registries/registrars.  The procedure can be found here:
>
>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm
>
> Please let me know if you need more information.
>
> Regards,
> Denise
>
> Denise Michel
> ICANN
> Advisor to the President & CEO
> denise.michel at icann.org
> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/2dafee64/attachment.html 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 18:27:41 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:27:41 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Possible outcomes of GNSO policy work
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQGRijpKtN_0jb5YUcuALwRbJ=qqP1jTWbfZkjsrpT7_Zw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Team members:

I'm following-up on an additional question I received about
mandatory/binding policies on registrars and registries.

*Possible* outcomes of GNSO policy work include all of the following:

   - Binding Policies on Contracted Parties (registrars and registries)
   - Non-Binding Policies on Contracted Parties (e.g. Procedure for Handling
   Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws)
   - Best Practices/Codes of Conduct
   - Advice to ICANN
   - Recommend Contract Changes
   - Technical Specifications

Please let me know if you need more information.

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


On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
wrote:
>
> The link I provided (below) was for the draft procedure.  Here's the final
procedure in case you need it:
>
> Step One: Notification of Whois Proceeding
>
> 1.1 At the earliest appropriate juncture on receiving notification of an
investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or
civil action that might affect its compliance with the provisions of the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (?RAA?) or other contractual agreement
with ICANN dealing with the collection, display or distribution of
personally identifiable data via WHOIS ("WHOIS Proceeding"), a
registrar/registry should provide ICANN staff with the following:
>
> Summary description of the nature and status of the action (e.g., inquiry,
investigation, litigation, threat of sanctions, etc.) and a range of
possible outcomes.
> Contact information for the responsible official of the registrar/registry
for resolving the problem.
> If appropriate, contact information for the responsible territorial
government agency or other claimant and a statement from the
registrar/registry authorizing ICANN to communicate with those officials or
claimants on the matter. If the registrar/registry is prevented by
applicable law from granting such authorization, the notification should
document this.
> The text of the applicable law or regulations upon which the local
government or other claimant is basing its action or investigation, if such
information has been indicated by the government or other claimant.
> Description of efforts undertaken to meet the requirements of both local
law and obligations to ICANN.
>
> 1.2 Meeting the notification requirement permits registrars/registries to
participate in investigations and respond to court orders, regulations, or
enforcement authorities in a manner and course deemed best by their counsel.
>
> 1.3 Depending on the specific circumstances of the WHOIS Proceeding, the
registrar/registry may request that ICANN keep all correspondence between
the parties confidential pending the outcome of the WHOIS Proceeding. ICANN
will ordinarily respond favorably to such requests to the extent that they
can be accommodated with other legal responsibilities and basic principles
of transparency applicable to ICANN operations.
>
> 1.4 A registrar or registry that is subject to a WHOIS proceeding should
work cooperatively with the relevant national government to ensure that the
registrar or registry operates in conformity with domestic laws and
regulations, and international law and applicable international conventions.
>
> Step Two: Consultation
>
> 2.1 The goal of the consultation process should be to seek to resolve the
problem in a manner that preserves the ability of the registrar/registry to
comply with its contractual WHOIS obligations to the greatest extent
possible.
>
> 2.1.1 Unless impractical under the circumstances, upon receipt and review
of the notification, ICANN will consult with the registrar/registry. Where
appropriate under the circumstances, ICANN will consult with the
local/national enforcement authorities or other claimant together with the
registrar/registry.
>
> 2.1.2 Pursuant to advice from ICANN?s Governmental Advisory Committee,
ICANN will request advice from the relevant national government on the
authority of the request for derogation from the ICANN WHOIS requirements.
>
> 2.2 If the WHOIS Proceeding ends without requiring any changes or the
required changes in registrar/registry practice do not, in the opinion of
ICANN, constitute a deviation from the RAA or other contractual obligation,
then ICANN and the registrar/registry need to take no further action.
>
> 2.3 If the registrar/registry is required by local law enforcement
authorities or a court to make changes in its practices affecting compliance
with WHOIS-related contractual obligations before any consultation process
can occur, the registrar/registry should promptly notify ICANN of the
changes made and the law/regulation upon which the action was based.
>
> 2.4 The registrar/registry may request that ICANN keep all correspondence
between the parties confidential pending the outcome of the WHOIS
Proceeding. ICANN will ordinarily respond favorably to such requests to the
extent that they can be accommodated with other legal responsibilities and
basic principles of transparency applicable to ICANN operations.
>
> Step Three: General Counsel Analysis and Recommendation
>
> 3.1 If the WHOIS Proceeding requires changes (whether before, during or
after the consultation process described above) that, in the opinion of the
Office of ICANN?s General Counsel, prevent compliance with contractual WHOIS
obligations, ICANN staff may refrain, on a provisional basis, from taking
enforcement action against the registrar/registry for non-compliance, while
ICANN prepares a public report and recommendation and submits it to the
ICANN Board for a decision. Prior to release of the report to the public,
the registry/registrar may request that certain information (including, but
not limited to, communications between the registry/registrar and ICANN, or
other privileged/confidential information) be redacted from the report. The
General Counsel may redact such advice or information from any published
version of the report that relates to legal advice to ICANN or advice from
ICANN?s counsel that in the view of the General Counsel should be restricted
due to privileges or possible liability to ICANN. Such a report may contain:
>
> A summary of the law or regulation involved in the conflict;
> Specification of the part of the registry or registrar's contractual WHOIS
obligations with which full compliance if being prevented;
> Summary of the consultation process if any under step two; and
> Recommendation of how the issue should be resolved, which may include
whether ICANN should provide an exception for those registrars/registries to
which the specific conflict applies from one or more identified WHOIS
contractual provisions. The report should include a detailed justification
of its recommendation, including the anticipated impact on the operational
stability, reliability, security, or global interoperability of the
Internet's unique identifier systems if the recommendation were to be
approved or denied.
>
> 3.2 The registrar/registry will be provided a reasonable opportunity to
comment to the Board. The Registrar/Registry may request that ICANN keep
such report confidential prior to any resolution of the Board. ICANN will
ordinarily respond favorably to such requests to the extent that they can be
accommodated with other legal responsibilities and basic principles of
transparency applicable to ICANN operations.
>
> Step Four: Resolution
>
> 4.1 Keeping in the mind the anticipated impact on the operational
stability, reliability, security, or global interoperability of the
Internet's unique identifier systems, the Board will consider and take
appropriate action on the recommendations contained in the General Counsel's
report as soon as practicable. Actions could include, but are not limited
to:
>
> Approving or rejecting the report's recommendations, with or without
modifications;
> Seeking additional information from the affected registrar/registry or
third parties;
> Scheduling a public comment period on the report; or
> Referring the report to GNSO for its review and comment by a date certain.
>
> Step Five: Public Notice
>
> 5.1 The Board's resolution of the issue, together with the General
Counsel's report, will ordinarily be made public and be archived on ICANN?s
website (along with other related materials) for future research. Prior to
release of such information to the public, the registry/registrar may
request that certain information (including, but not limited to,
communications between the registry/registrar and ICANN, or other
privileged/confidential information) be redacted from the public notice. The
General Counsel may redact such advice or information from any published
version of the report that relates to legal advice to ICANN or advice from
ICANN?s counsel that in the view of the General Counsel should be restricted
due to privileges or possible liability to ICANN. In the event that any
redactions make it difficult to convey to the public the nature of the
actions being taken by the registry/registrar, ICANN will work to provide
appropriate notice to the public describing the actions being taken and the
justification for such actions, as may be practicable under the
circumstances.
>
> 5.2 Unless the Board decides otherwise, if the result of its resolution of
the issue is that data elements in the registry/registrar's WHOIS output
will be removed or made less accessible, ICANN will issue an appropriate
notice to the public of the resolution and of the reasons for ICANN's
forbearance from enforcement of full compliance with the contractual
provision in question.
>
> Step Six: Ongoing Review
>
> 6.1 With substantial input from the relevant registries or registrars,
together with all constituencies, ICANN will review the effectiveness of the
process annually.
>
> Denise Michel
> ICANN
> Advisor to the President & CEO
> denise.michel at icann.org
> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
wrote:
> > Dear Team members:
> >
> > To follow-up on a question raised this morning -- the "ICANN Procedure
> > For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law" doesn't impose any
> > obligations on registrars and is referred to as a "procedure" as it is
> > not a policy that registrars are contractually obligated to implement.
> >
> > The GNSO concluded a policy development process on the establishment
> > of a procedure and in 2006 ICANN's Board adopted the policy and
> > directed ICANN staff to issue a conflicts procedure.   While the
> > procedure includes possible actions for the affected gTLD
> > registry/registrar, this procedure does not impose any new obligations
> > on registries/registrars.  The procedure can be found here:
> >
> >
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm
> >
> > Please let me know if you need more information.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Denise
> >
> > Denise Michel
> > ICANN
> > Advisor to the President & CEO
> > denise.michel at icann.org
> > +1.408.429.3072 mobile
> > +1.310.578.8632 direct
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/5cc4dd3a/attachment.html 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Tue Sep 20 19:17:07 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:17:07 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] 2009 RAA adoption figures
Message-ID: <20110920121707.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6787e4c07d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/76404112/attachment.html 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Tue Sep 20 19:39:09 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:39:09 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Capability Maturity Model for evaluation purposes
Message-ID: <20110920123909.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.64e8e70980.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/a7b23ae7/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 19:44:34 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:44:34 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] ATRT Final report
Message-ID: <CA9E3B32.F274%alice.jansen@icann.org>

http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/atrt-final-recommendations-31dec10-en.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/9d0c7cb4/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 21:25:50 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:25:50 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Tour of ICANN offices
Message-ID: <CA9E52EE.F29D%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Would you be interested in seeing the ICANN offices tomorrow at 1:00 PM?
If so, please contact me off-list.

Thanks,

Kind regards

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/4f167090/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Sep 20 23:43:08 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:43:08 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dinner
Message-ID: <CA9E731C.F2B0%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dinner @ 19:30 (Antiqua Room)

Restaurant: Vu restaurant - Jamaica Bay Inn - http://www.vurestaurantmarinadelrey.com/

Location: 14160 Palawan Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Map<http://maps.google.be/maps?saddr=13480+Maxella+Avenue+%C2%B7+Marina+Del+Rey,+CA+90292&daddr=14160+Palawan+Way+Marina+del+Rey,+CA+90292&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&ll=33.982549,-118.449547&spn=0.009199,0.01929&sll=33.98664,-118.450245&sspn=0.009198,0.01929&geocode=FVeSBgIdu7vw-Cn7M-F0h7rCgDEN2ILdbxg3fA%3BFWCJBgIdwnvw-CnXMjb3mbrCgDGkpVPYrYjKhA&vpsrc=6&dirflg=w&mra=ltm&t=h&z=16>

Reservation under Alice Jansen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110920/49d6b742/attachment.html 

From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Wed Sep 21 00:06:13 2011
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:06:13 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] [OT] DomainWire Stat Report 2011
Message-ID: <CAD48TT82VaaJr+6uQ2W7YLJoKZiR1Lv3WMEZJJLixGZ2EY=ZAQ@mail.gmail.com>

The new DomainWire Stat Report presents an overview of Top Level
Domains globally with a focus on Europe and ccTLDs. This editions
covers; TLD proportions globally Top 20 ccTLD globally Growth in
European ccTLDs Internet usage globally

https://www.centr.org/main/6513-CTR.html

Could be useful somehow.

Omar


From alice.jansen at icann.org  Wed Sep 21 14:21:52 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:21:52 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reminder - Start time today --> 8:00 AM
Message-ID: <CA9F4110.F51A%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please be kindly reminded that our start time for today is 8 o'clock.

Thanks,

Kind regards

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110921/63da5ff5/attachment.html 

From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Wed Sep 21 14:26:51 2011
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (kathy at kathykleiman.com)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:26:51 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reviewing proxy/privacy ideas
Message-ID: <2207.1316615212@kathykleiman.com>

 

	Hi All,  

	After good food and great company last night, I awoke with some new
ideas regarding proxy/privacy service providers.   

	What we know:  

	-          Not too much. Proxy/privacy providers (p/p) are not
something we have studied closely. We know that many people,
including very experienced Net users, do not have a clear
distinction. They are generally used in the same voice at the same
time. 

	-          We have no clear data about p/p. The upcoming GNSO
studies will provide a) a study on reveal and relay requests to p/p
providers, and b) a study of what percentage of ?bad guys? are
under p/p registration. We have only a study that says that 15-20% of
domain names are under p/p, and an array of comments. We have not
actual facts about p/p providers themselves.  

	-          Under US law, there is a strong protection of privacy and
even anonymity in Free Speech, but ?no tradition of anonymous
commerce in the US.? Let me quote the World Trademark Review,
Aug/Sept 2011, article: ?Why Trademark Owners Must lead the fight
for accountability in e-commerce.?  ** ?Clearly the First
Amendment includes the right to speak anonymously. Moveover, the
First Amendment places anonymous speech on the Internet on the same
footing as other speech. As with other forms of expression, the
ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust
exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves
without fear of economic or official retaliation or concern about
social ostracism. The importance of the Internet to the expression of
protected speech cannot be overstated??  

	Like the International Trademark Association, in some recent
legislative work in the US, let?s focus on the conduct we are most
concerned about:   

	-          Domain names being used in conjunction with ?goods or
services advertised or sold at that [a] website.? (International
Trademark Association language as part of promoting a new US Statute
for services of process to domain registrants whose data cannot be
found ? article above) 

	For our WRT decisions, let?s please not create confusion. The
lines between p/p are difficult and unclear. Let?s focus on conduct
we know is out there and bounds that can be quickly established and
are likely to help. ** Let me offer some reflections of yesterday. 
We all seem to agree that: ** 

	-          WE CAN BIND P/P CLOSER TO REGISTRARS, thus a Draft
Recommendation: Registrars may not knowingly use for their own
registrations, or register the domain names of p/p service providers
who do not have contracts with them; do not have clear agreements to
gather accurate Whois data from registrants; do not have clear
contractual obligations to Reveal the underlying registrant data when
requested under law or pursuant to ICANN rules.  

	-          ICANN will rapidly establish a proceeding, with Law
Enforcement and Consumer Communities, as well as privacy and free
speech Official and Experts, to develop a set of Reveal and Relay
rules for p/p providers, in conjunction with the ICANN Community.  

	-          Registrant Declaration: is the domain name being used for
goods or services sold or advertised using the domain name (note: this
includes not only websites, but emails and other forms of domain name
use).    
	(Note: the GNSO might want to wait to set up rules until soon after
their $200,000+ studies are completed within the year) 
	Overall, separating out p/p providers without much more work and
very, very, very extensive education  -- it will be very confusing to
ICANN and the Internet public. 
	Best, Kathy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110921/30daf4e8/attachment.html 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Wed Sep 21 16:11:57 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:11:57 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Question on GNSO privacy/proxy study email
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQECKb+xu1FXKC9Qd9UmHYHxD=1fbj9wvHrwYWTTUZiX0w@mail.gmail.com>

Liz confirmed that the email regarding the GNSO privacy/proxy survey was
sent to all constituency email lists (including all ICANN registrars and
registries).  There is no list of privacy/proxy providers.

Regards,
Denise

Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110921/1ab80112/attachment.html 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Sep 21 16:20:28 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:20:28 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Question on GNSO privacy/proxy study email
Message-ID: <20110921092028.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.675fd5f85e.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110921/a7a32a37/attachment.html 

From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Wed Sep 21 16:26:27 2011
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:26:27 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Question on GNSO privacy/proxy study email
In-Reply-To: <20110921092028.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.675fd5f85e.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20110921092028.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.675fd5f85e.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <CAD48TT-FY0KB1++RofvRcumB3sdF01W2kdkGkufHySWDmuko6A@mail.gmail.com>

Is there any special reason for not having this list avaliable?

Omar


2011/9/21 James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>:
> Thanks, Denise.
>
>>>There is no list of privacy/proxy providers.
> Sorry for the dead end, folks.
> J.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Question on GNSO privacy/proxy study email
> From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
> Date: Wed, September 21, 2011 11:11 am
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org
>
> Liz confirmed that the email regarding the GNSO privacy/proxy survey was
> sent to all constituency email lists (including all ICANN registrars and
> registries). ?There is no list of privacy/proxy providers.
> 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
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Sep 21 17:08:27 2011
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:08:27 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] [OT] Panoramic pic of yesterday dinner
Message-ID: <CAD48TT94ncnkqhCs0o_KuWXJyewZSdcEsPz7A=Dg6ucQpAkVVg@mail.gmail.com>

Enjoy :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DSC00399.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 342527 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110921/63e55c43/DSC00399.JPG 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Wed Sep 21 16:57:21 2011
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:57:21 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Question on GNSO privacy/proxy study email
In-Reply-To: <CAPcHvQECKb+xu1FXKC9Qd9UmHYHxD=1fbj9wvHrwYWTTUZiX0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPcHvQECKb+xu1FXKC9Qd9UmHYHxD=1fbj9wvHrwYWTTUZiX0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQE31yce1vsWun=LcUy2LOmPAoKYRa3p4kKMEH=ROPSegw@mail.gmail.com>

FYI:
http://blog.icann.org/2011/09/gtld-whois-privacy-and-proxy-relay-and-reveal-survey-now-live/

Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct


On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>wrote:

> Liz confirmed that the email regarding the GNSO privacy/proxy survey was
> sent to all constituency email lists (including all ICANN registrars and
> registries).  There is no list of privacy/proxy providers.
>
> Regards,
> Denise
>
> Denise Michel
> ICANN
> Advisor to the President & CEO
> denise.michel at icann.org
> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110921/1906d87d/attachment.html 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Sep 21 17:20:37 2011
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:20:37 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] [OT] Panoramic pic of yesterday dinner
Message-ID: <20110921102037.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.695c8c929c.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110921/11c23edf/attachment.html 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Thu Sep 22 14:49:28 2011
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:49:28 +0100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] [OT] Panoramic pic of yesterday dinner
In-Reply-To: <CAD48TT94ncnkqhCs0o_KuWXJyewZSdcEsPz7A=Dg6ucQpAkVVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD48TT94ncnkqhCs0o_KuWXJyewZSdcEsPz7A=Dg6ucQpAkVVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFsdxNa5GOrk=bTGZEwciXo1nh82axg=9WC3MPrH5nbopXA@mail.gmail.com>

Great pic - one for the website!


On 21 September 2011 18:08, Omar Kaminski <omar at kaminski.adv.br> wrote:

> Enjoy :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>


-- 




*
*

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/20110922/364d51de/attachment.html 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Thu Sep 22 17:07:54 2011
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:07:54 +0100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Consumer trust - Ofcom survey
Message-ID: <CAKWYFsdZJH543LoPOUdt+57cPsU07utXYCiqhVSABLnM8=99wg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all

Thanks for a very productive meeting in LA this week.

I enjoyed seeing you all again.

I have been doing some more thinking about the issue of consumer trust, and
wondered whether we might use some secondary sources in addition to our
commissioned research.  I will looking at this report on Internet usage in
the UK by Ofcom (the UK communications regulator)
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/753567/CMR_2010_FINAL.pdf.


The relevant section is Section 4, Internet and Web based content - page
233ff.  The research discusses user attitudes to web content, their trust in
search engine results, and their favourite sites and online activities
(curiously, ICANN doesn't appear in the Top 10, and "whois searching" isn't
listed as a favourite activity!).

I'm sure that the UK is not the only country to do such research, and
wondered whether we might find a couple of others to do some comparators on
general consumer trust (which looks pretty good from this report, and good
to see also that there's a fairly sophisticated level of ICT
literacy/critical capacity), as a backgrounder before the deep dive into
consumer attitudes towards WHOIS.

Kind regards

Emily
-- 




*
*

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/20110922/c72bb8f7/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Thu Sep 22 20:51:26 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:51:26 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recordings of MdR meeting
Message-ID: <CAA0EDDE.F752%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Many thanks for a very fruitful meeting.

This is to inform you that the mp3 recordings of the meeting may be found on the public wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Marina+del+Rey+Meeting

Note that the mp3 of the closed session (not for distribution) may be found on the private wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/User+Insight+Report+%28MdR%29

Have a safe journey home,

Kindest regards

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110922/aea4f7be/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Fri Sep 23 01:26:32 2011
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:26:32 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] DAKAR schedule
Message-ID: <CAA12E58.F78A%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review team Members,

Enclosed you will find your revised Dakar schedule.

Saturday, 22 October

13:00-17:00 Face-to-Face meeting

Sunday, 23 October

9:00-17:00 - Face-to-Face meeting

Monday, 24 October

13:00-17:00 - Face-to-Face meeting

Please also note that you may find it on your public wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Dakar+Meeting

Thanks,

Kindest regards

Alice

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110922/7d706d79/attachment.html 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Fri Sep 23 08:52:36 2011
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:52:36 +0100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] DAKAR schedule
In-Reply-To: <CAA12E58.F78A%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <CAA12E58.F78A%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFse=KDz5ABwv1ZO2+_RCGBAygR+L6ua4ga6X1CYbUJR+=w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All

Just a clarification that the Saturday meeting will be in the same style as
this week, ie it will be for those who are already in Dakar, and want to
discuss some of the issues informally.  I will not be arriving until
Saturday evening, so will not be around for the Saturday meeting.

Kind regards

Emily



On 23 September 2011 02:26, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Review team Members,
>
> Enclosed you will find your revised Dakar schedule.
>
> *Saturday, 22 October*
>
> 13:00-17:00 Face-to-Face meeting
>
> *Sunday, 23 October*
>
> 9:00-17:00 - Face-to-Face meeting
>
> *Monday, 24 October*
>
> 13:00-17:00 - Face-to-Face meeting
> Please also note that you may find it on your public wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Dakar+Meeting
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kindest regards
>
> Alice
>
> *
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>


-- 




*
*

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
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/20110923/32958dea/attachment.html 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Fri Sep 23 21:22:11 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:22:11 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for consumer
	trust survey
Message-ID: <20110923142211.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.7104158e4a.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110923/1bcf2a2c/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2011 09 23 ICANN Survey V2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 34304 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110923/1bcf2a2c/20110923ICANNSurveyV2.doc 

From sharonchallis at aol.com  Sat Sep 24 13:28:44 2011
From: sharonchallis at aol.com (Sharon Lemon)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:28:44 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for
	consumer trust survey
In-Reply-To: <20110923142211.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.7104158e4a.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
References: <20110923142211.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.7104158e4a.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <1A47484C-7608-46BD-AAAB-B2A261668019@aol.com>

Lynn,

It seems the real 'meat and potatoes' of the questionnaire is right at the end- I would rather see the look up part come nearer the beginning and be expanded.   I'm not sure we should suggest which Whois database they should use, the fact that it is confusing is all part of our evidence what a mess it all is.

Also, we should say that 'contact us' details are not sufficient. Agree Wikipedia would be a good one.

Thanks for your continued work on this.

Sharon

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Sep 2011, at 14:22, <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> I am forwarding below the preliminary questionnaire for the consumer trust survey, attached to this message.
> (The User Insight team is okay with this being distributed on the Whois email list.)
> I have copied Jonathan Yardley on this message as a courtesy.
>  
> We are working with a tight deadline and we need feedback this weekend.  I know this is a dedicated
> team so appreciate your time in off business hours.
>  
> In particular, please see the last section of questions.  As the last part of the survey, we would like for the participants to
> actually experience the Whois lookup.  We need to decide on a website domain name to use for this purpose.
> Does anyone have a suggestion for a well known global website we could use in the survey?  My sense is that
> Wikipedia would be recognized in Europe and North America but not sure if it would work everywhere.
> But it would be neutral in the sense that it is not a trading or commercial website.
>  
> Another question is which Whois lookup page should we use?
> My thought is to use the InterNIC one because it covers all current registries.  Here is the link for reference:
> http://www.internic.net/whois.html
>  
> I am thinking that InterNIC is more "neutral" than trying to use the Whois page of one of the bigger registries or registrars.
> Kathy and James - as representatives of the registry and registrar constituency, would especially appreciate your
> suggestions on this point.  Note that we would lose the point about domain ads being displayed if we decide to use InterNIC.
>  
> The alternative would be to choose 3 WHOIS lookup pages.  The survey would have each participant look at 2 of them and
> the surveys would be distributed to obtain balanced results among those 3.  I am just not sure how to pick 3.
>  
> Please note that all the questions will be translated to the primary language for each country.
> Also, there are some questions with specific examples that will be modified for appropriate examples in each country.
> The English questions here are using U.S. examples.
>  
> Sarmad, I will follow up with you separately on the point about non-Latin characters being unavailable in Whois lookups.
>  
> Please come back to me with any other questions.
> Best regards to all,
> Lynn
>  
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Version 2
> From: Jonathan Yardley <jyardley at userinsight.com>
> Date: Fri, September 23, 2011 2:32 pm
> To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, jmorgan at userinsight.com, Rachel
> Walsh <rwalsh at userinsight.com>
> 
> Hi Lynn,
> Here is V2. Please socialize with your team. In particular we would like help with selecting a universal URL for people to search for the owner of.
> Thanks-JCY
> 
> 
> Jonathan Yardley
> Director, Project Management
> jyardley at userinsight.com
> 
> UserInsight
> T 770 391 1099 ext. 1401
> C 404 542 8594
> Ui Blog | @UserInsight | AIM: jonyard
> 
> An Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Company - 2008, 2009 & 2010
> 
> <2011 09 23 ICANN Survey V2.doc>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110924/7667a22d/attachment.html 

From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Sat Sep 24 16:52:45 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:52:45 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for
	consumer trust survey
In-Reply-To: <1A47484C-7608-46BD-AAAB-B2A261668019@aol.com>
References: <20110923142211.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.7104158e4a.wbe@email12.secureserver.net><1A47484C-7608-46BD-AAAB-B2A261668019@aol.com>
Message-ID: <1407100366-1316883167-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1979038553-@b5.c9.bise6.blackberry>

Thanks for your prompt response Sharon.  I will go back to the research team with these points.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon Lemon <sharonchallis at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:28:44 
To: <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com><lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org<rt4-whois at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for consumer trust survey

Lynn,

It seems the real 'meat and potatoes' of the questionnaire is right at the end- I would rather see the look up part come nearer the beginning and be expanded.   I'm not sure we should suggest which Whois database they should use, the fact that it is confusing is all part of our evidence what a mess it all is.

Also, we should say that 'contact us' details are not sufficient. Agree Wikipedia would be a good one.

Thanks for your continued work on this.

Sharon

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Sep 2011, at 14:22, <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> I am forwarding below the preliminary questionnaire for the consumer trust survey, attached to this message.
> (The User Insight team is okay with this being distributed on the Whois email list.)
> I have copied Jonathan Yardley on this message as a courtesy.
>  
> We are working with a tight deadline and we need feedback this weekend.  I know this is a dedicated
> team so appreciate your time in off business hours.
>  
> In particular, please see the last section of questions.  As the last part of the survey, we would like for the participants to
> actually experience the Whois lookup.  We need to decide on a website domain name to use for this purpose.
> Does anyone have a suggestion for a well known global website we could use in the survey?  My sense is that
> Wikipedia would be recognized in Europe and North America but not sure if it would work everywhere.
> But it would be neutral in the sense that it is not a trading or commercial website.
>  
> Another question is which Whois lookup page should we use?
> My thought is to use the InterNIC one because it covers all current registries.  Here is the link for reference:
> http://www.internic.net/whois.html
>  
> I am thinking that InterNIC is more "neutral" than trying to use the Whois page of one of the bigger registries or registrars.
> Kathy and James - as representatives of the registry and registrar constituency, would especially appreciate your
> suggestions on this point.  Note that we would lose the point about domain ads being displayed if we decide to use InterNIC.
>  
> The alternative would be to choose 3 WHOIS lookup pages.  The survey would have each participant look at 2 of them and
> the surveys would be distributed to obtain balanced results among those 3.  I am just not sure how to pick 3.
>  
> Please note that all the questions will be translated to the primary language for each country.
> Also, there are some questions with specific examples that will be modified for appropriate examples in each country.
> The English questions here are using U.S. examples.
>  
> Sarmad, I will follow up with you separately on the point about non-Latin characters being unavailable in Whois lookups.
>  
> Please come back to me with any other questions.
> Best regards to all,
> Lynn
>  
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Version 2
> From: Jonathan Yardley <jyardley at userinsight.com>
> Date: Fri, September 23, 2011 2:32 pm
> To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, jmorgan at userinsight.com, Rachel
> Walsh <rwalsh at userinsight.com>
> 
> Hi Lynn,
> Here is V2. Please socialize with your team. In particular we would like help with selecting a universal URL for people to search for the owner of.
> Thanks-JCY
> 
> 
> Jonathan Yardley
> Director, Project Management
> jyardley at userinsight.com
> 
> UserInsight
> T 770 391 1099 ext. 1401
> C 404 542 8594
> Ui Blog | @UserInsight | AIM: jonyard
> 
> An Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Company - 2008, 2009 & 2010
> 
> <2011 09 23 ICANN Survey V2.doc>
>_______________________________________________
> 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/20110924/22a9cd38/attachment.html 

From kim at vonarx.ca  Sun Sep 25 01:51:46 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (kim at vonarx.ca)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 21:51:46 -0400
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for
 consumer trust survey
In-Reply-To: <20110923142211.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.7104158e4a.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
References: <20110923142211.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.7104158e4a.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <a866c8e32fc45835503f5f024594d79f.squirrel@vonarx.ca>

Dear Lynn et al:

Thank you very much for all the hard work.

I think the questionnaire is very good. I was quite impressed by the
simplicity and insight it conveyed.

With respect to the WHOIS service they should be using, I suggest that
should be open, i.e, the user should try to find one for themselves. 
Having said that, I am not sure how much or what kind of beneficial data
that would add, but I think it may be a point worth raising.

With respect to the Internet site, I would suggest we go with the United
Nations website.  I believe that all countries should be aware of the UN. 
Alternatively, how about the Red Cross?

Finally, with respect to the questions themselves.  I think that there
should be something more in there with respect to concerns and or
questions those participants may have about the WHOIS service.  Indeed,
there should be section for someone to does have domain name to look up
his/her own information and seeing what is out there about him/her and
then to have some information on what his/her thoughts are about that.

I believe the structure of the questions if well thought out and flows
quite nicely.

All in all, I believe this is well done.  Thanks again for the hard work. 
I am very sorry that I did not make it to the LA meeting, but things are
crazy on my end here on the personal front and I am really barely keeping
my head above water.

All the best,

Kim


> <html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
> font-size:10pt;"><div>Dear All,</div>
> <div>I am forwarding below the preliminary questionnaire for the consumer
> trust survey, attached to this message.</div>
> <div>(The User Insight team is okay with this being distributed on the
> Whois email list.)</div>
> <div>I have copied Jonathan Yardley on this message as a courtesy.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>We are working with a tight deadline and we need feedback this
> weekend.&nbsp; I know this is a dedicated</div>
> <div>team so appreciate your time in off business hours.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>In particular, please see the last section of
> questions.&nbsp;&nbsp;As the last part of the survey,&nbsp;we would like
> for the participants to</div>
> <div>actually experience the Whois lookup.&nbsp; We need&nbsp;to decide
> on&nbsp;a website domain name to use for this purpose.</div>
> <div>Does anyone have a suggestion for a well known global website we
> could use in the survey?&nbsp; My sense is that</div>
> <div>Wikipedia would be recognized in Europe and North America but not
> sure if it would work everywhere.</div>
> <div>But it would be neutral in the sense that it is not a trading or
> commercial website.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>Another question is which Whois lookup page should we use?</div>
> <div>My thought is to use the InterNIC one because it covers all current
> registries.&nbsp; Here is the link for reference:</div>
> <div><A
> href="http://www.internic.net/whois.html">http://www.internic.net/whois.html</A></div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>I am thinking&nbsp;that InterNIC&nbsp;is more "neutral" than trying
> to use the&nbsp;Whois page of&nbsp;one of the bigger registries or
> registrars.</div>
> <div>Kathy and James - as representatives of the registry and registrar
> constituency, would especially appreciate your</div>
> <div>suggestions on this point.&nbsp; Note that we would lose the point
> about domain ads being displayed if we decide to use InterNIC.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>The alternative would be to choose 3 WHOIS lookup pages.&nbsp; The
> survey would have each participant look at 2 of them and</div>
> <div>the surveys would be distributed to obtain balanced results among
> those 3.&nbsp; I am just not sure how to pick 3.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>Please note that all the questions will be translated to the primary
> language for each country.</div>
> <div>Also, there are some questions with specific examples that will be
> modified for appropriate examples in each country.</div>
> <div>The English questions here are using U.S. examples.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>Sarmad, I will follow up with you separately on the point about
> non-Latin characters being unavailable in Whois lookups.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>Please come back to me with any other questions.</div>
> <div>Best regards to all,</div>
> <div>Lynn</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px;
> FONT-FAMILY: verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
> id=replyBlockquote webmail="1">
> <DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
> Version 2<BR>From: Jonathan Yardley &lt;<a
> href="mailto:jyardley at userinsight.com">jyardley at userinsight.com</a>&gt;<BR>Date:
> Fri, September 23, 2011 2:32 pm<BR>To: <a
> href="mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com">lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com</a>,
> <a href="mailto:jmorgan at userinsight.com">jmorgan at userinsight.com</a>,
> Rachel<BR>Walsh &lt;<a
> href="mailto:rwalsh at userinsight.com">rwalsh at userinsight.com</a>&gt;<BR><BR>Hi
> Lynn,<BR>Here is V2. Please socialize with your team. In particular we
> would like help with selecting a universal URL for people to search for
> the owner of.<BR>Thanks-JCY<BR><BR><BR>Jonathan Yardley<BR>Director,
> Project Management<BR><a
> href="mailto:jyardley at userinsight.com">jyardley at userinsight.com</a><BR><BR>UserInsight<BR>T
> 770 391 1099 ext. 1401<BR>C 404 542 8594<BR>Ui Blog | @UserInsight | AIM:
> jonyard<BR><BR>An Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Company - 2008, 2009 &amp;
> 2010<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>_______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>




From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com  Sun Sep 25 02:43:39 2011
From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:43:39 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for
 consumer trust survey
Message-ID: <20110924194339.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.cdb28a55d4.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110924/8897dcc6/attachment.html 

From kim at vonarx.ca  Sun Sep 25 03:18:19 2011
From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 23:18:19 -0400
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for
	consumer trust survey
In-Reply-To: <20110924194339.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.cdb28a55d4.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
References: <20110924194339.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.cdb28a55d4.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <F0416A5B-B911-4ED0-9668-DDB8A420F95A@vonarx.ca>

Makes sense to me. 

In that regard I agree with your interNiC suggestion. 

Kim

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

On 2011-09-24, at 22:43, <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:

> Thanks Kim,
> We missed you in L.A. but understand.
> Your suggestion of the United Nations or Red Cross are great!
> Thanks for your time and thought in reviewing.
> 
> I am taking this feedback and Sharon's comments back to User Insight for
> further consultation.
> 
> If anyone else has further comments or suggestions, please let me know tomorrow.
> 
> The predicament we have about which Whois page or site to use is that in the
> qualitative interviews, it was clear that there is a very low awareness that there
> is any kind of look-up or directory service for domain name owners.  And the name
> "Whois" is certainly not well known.  We can expect that almost all the online survey recipients
> will not be familiar with the term "Whois".
> 
> Just my impression was that the in person interviews showed that when people were
> asked to research a website, they used several different methods and did not always
> find a Whois page.
> 
> In this next step of research, the challenge is that this will be an online survey and
> people have to have pretty specific direction and choices.   So we do want them to "find"
> a Whois page.
> 
> Best regards,
> Lynn
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for
> consumer trust survey
> From: kim at vonarx.ca
> Date: Sat, September 24, 2011 9:51 pm
> To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org, "Jonathan Yardley" <jyardley at userinsight.com>
> 
> Dear Lynn et al:
> 
> Thank you very much for all the hard work.
> 
> I think the questionnaire is very good. I was quite impressed by the
> simplicity and insight it conveyed.
> 
> With respect to the WHOIS service they should be using, I suggest that
> should be open, i.e, the user should try to find one for themselves. 
> Having said that, I am not sure how much or what kind of beneficial data
> that would add, but I think it may be a point worth raising.
> 
> With respect to the Internet site, I would suggest we go with the United
> Nations website. I believe that all countries should be aware of the UN. 
> Alternatively, how about the Red Cross?
> 
> Finally, with respect to the questions themselves. I think that there
> should be something more in there with respect to concerns and or
> questions those participants may have about the WHOIS service. Indeed,
> there should be section for someone to does have domain name to look up
> his/her own information and seeing what is out there about him/her and
> then to have some information on what his/her thoughts are about that.
> 
> I believe the structure of the questions if well thought out and flows
> quite nicely.
> 
> All in all, I believe this is well done.  Thanks again for the hard work. 
> I am very sorry that I did not make it to the LA meeting, but things are
> crazy on my end here on the personal front and I am really barely keeping
> my head above water.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Kim
> 
> 
> > <html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
> > font-size:10pt;"><div>Dear All,</div>
> > <div>I am forwarding below the preliminary questionnaire for the consumer
> > trust survey, attached to this message.</div>
> > <div>(The User Insight team is okay with this being distributed on the
> > Whois email list.)</div>
> > <div>I have copied Jonathan Yardley on this message as a courtesy.</div>
> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
> > <div>We are working with a tight deadline and we need feedback this
> > weekend.&nbsp; I know this is a dedicated</div>
> > <div>team so appreciate your time in off business hours.</div>
> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
> > <div>In particular, please see the last section of
> > questions.&nbsp;&nbsp;As the last part of the survey,&nbsp;we would like
> > for the participants to</div>
> > <div>actually experience the Whois lookup.&nbsp; We need&nbsp;to decide
> > on&nbsp;a website domain name to use for this purpose.</div>
> > <div>Does anyone have a suggestion for a well known global website we
> > could use in the survey?&nbsp; My sense is that</div>
> > <div>Wikipedia would be recognized in Europe and North America but not
> > sure if it would work everywhere.</div>
> > <div>But it would be neutral in the sense that it is not a trading or
> > commercial website.</div>
> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
> > <div>Another question is which Whois lookup page should we use?</div>
> > <div>My thought is to use the InterNIC one because it covers all current
> > registries.&nbsp; Here is the link for reference:</div>
> > <div>
> > href="http://www.internic.net/whois.html">http://www.internic.net/whois.html</div>
> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
> > <div>I am thinking&nbsp;that InterNIC&nbsp;is more "neutral" than trying
> > to use the&nbsp;Whois page of&nbsp;one of the bigger registries or
> > registrars.</div>
> > <div>Kathy and James - as representatives of the registry and registrar
> > constituency, would especially appreciate your</div>
> > <div>suggestions on this point.&nbsp; Note that we would lose the point
> > about domain ads being displayed if we decide to use InterNIC.</div>
> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
> > <div>The alternative would be to choose 3 WHOIS lookup pages.&nbsp; The
> > survey would have each participant look at 2 of them and</div>
> > <div>the surveys would be distributed to obtain balanced results among
> > those 3.&nbsp; I am just not sure how to pick 3.</div>
> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
> > <div>Please note that all the questions will be translated to the primary
> > language for each country.</div>
> > <div>Also, there are some questions with specific examples that will be
> > modified for appropriate examples in each country.</div>
> > <div>The English questions here are using U.S. examples.</div>
> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
> > <div>Sarmad, I will follow up with you separately on the point about
> > non-Latin characters being unavailable in Whois lookups.</div>
> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
> > <div>Please come back to me with any other questions.</div>
> > <div>Best regards to all,</div>
> > <div>Lynn</div>
> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
> > <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px;
> > FONT-FAMILY: verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
> > id=replyBlockquote webmail="1">
> > <DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
> > Version 2<BR>From: Jonathan Yardley &lt;
> > href="mailto:jyardley at userinsight.com">jyardley at userinsight.com&gt;<BR>Date:
> > Fri, September 23, 2011 2:32 pm<BR>To: 
> > href="mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com">lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com,
> > jmorgan at userinsight.com,
> > Rachel<BR>Walsh &lt;
> > href="mailto:rwalsh at userinsight.com">rwalsh at userinsight.com&gt;<BR><BR>Hi
> > Lynn,<BR>Here is V2. Please socialize with your team. In particular we
> > would like help with selecting a universal URL for people to search for
> > the owner of.<BR>Thanks-JCY<BR><BR><BR>Jonathan Yardley<BR>Director,
> > Project Management<BR>
> > href="mailto:jyardley at userinsight.com">jyardley at userinsight.com<BR><BR>UserInsight<BR>T
> > 770 391 1099 ext. 1401<BR>C 404 542 8594<BR>Ui Blog | @UserInsight | AIM:
> > jonyard<BR><BR>An Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Company - 2008, 2009 &amp;
> > 2010<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>_______________________________________________
> > 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/20110924/657d6a8c/attachment.html 

From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at  Sun Sep 25 22:13:19 2011
From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet)
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:13:19 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for
 consumer trust survey
In-Reply-To: <20110923142211.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.7104158e4a.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
References: <20110923142211.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.7104158e4a.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <4E7FA77F.7020104@CC.UniVie.ac.at>

A couple of thoughts, probably not all too well reviewed and sorted right
now. It is Sunday late night here :-)

To start with, depending on the countries you want to use this in, the
Red Cross may not be the perfect site, as it is linked to Christianity.
There's also a Red Halfmoon and a Red Diamond organisation :-)

A few personal remarks regarding some of the proposed questions...

Q6: I am wondering how useful the explicit mentioning of particular companies
    or services is in this (global) context.

Although I consider myself almost an Internet-Junkie, I wouldn't know what
Yelp, Groupon, Living Social or Gilt is. Maybe I'm living on the wrong side
of the Digital Divide, being a Silver Surfer of the early Internet Days :-)
Same for FourSquare... Yes, I could use Google :-)

Q8: none of that would fit my use:
    which is testing new (DNS and DNSsec) technology and use for teaching.

Q9: I wouldn't know what to do with this one?

Q10: wondering - is HTTPS vs unsecured (HTTP) an issue in this context?

Fwiw, hth,
Wilfried.

lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com wrote:

> Dear All,
> I am forwarding below the preliminary questionnaire for the consumer
> trust survey, attached to this message.
> (The User Insight team is okay with this being distributed on the Whois
> email list.)
> I have copied Jonathan Yardley on this message as a courtesy.
>  
> We are working with a tight deadline and we need feedback this weekend. 
> I know this is a dedicated
> team so appreciate your time in off business hours.
>  
> In particular, please see the last section of questions.  As the last
> part of the survey, we would like for the participants to
> actually experience the Whois lookup.  We need to decide on a website
> domain name to use for this purpose.
> Does anyone have a suggestion for a well known global website we could
> use in the survey?  My sense is that
> Wikipedia would be recognized in Europe and North America but not sure
> if it would work everywhere.
> But it would be neutral in the sense that it is not a trading or
> commercial website.
>  
> Another question is which Whois lookup page should we use?
> My thought is to use the InterNIC one because it covers all current
> registries.  Here is the link for reference:
> http://www.internic.net/whois.html
>  
> I am thinking that InterNIC is more "neutral" than trying to use
> the Whois page of one of the bigger registries or registrars.
> Kathy and James - as representatives of the registry and registrar
> constituency, would especially appreciate your
> suggestions on this point.  Note that we would lose the point about
> domain ads being displayed if we decide to use InterNIC.
>  
> The alternative would be to choose 3 WHOIS lookup pages.  The survey
> would have each participant look at 2 of them and
> the surveys would be distributed to obtain balanced results among those
> 3.  I am just not sure how to pick 3.
>  
> Please note that all the questions will be translated to the primary
> language for each country.
> Also, there are some questions with specific examples that will be
> modified for appropriate examples in each country.
> The English questions here are using U.S. examples.
>  
> Sarmad, I will follow up with you separately on the point about
> non-Latin characters being unavailable in Whois lookups.
>  
> Please come back to me with any other questions.
> Best regards to all,
> Lynn
>  
>  
> 
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: Version 2
>     From: Jonathan Yardley <jyardley at userinsight.com
>     <mailto:jyardley at userinsight.com>>
>     Date: Fri, September 23, 2011 2:32 pm
>     To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
>     <mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>, jmorgan at userinsight.com
>     <mailto:jmorgan at userinsight.com>, Rachel
>     Walsh <rwalsh at userinsight.com <mailto:rwalsh at userinsight.com>>
> 
>     Hi Lynn,
>     Here is V2. Please socialize with your team. In particular we would
>     like help with selecting a universal URL for people to search for
>     the owner of.
>     Thanks-JCY
> 
> 
>     Jonathan Yardley
>     Director, Project Management
>     jyardley at userinsight.com <mailto:jyardley at userinsight.com>
> 
>     UserInsight
>     T 770 391 1099 ext. 1401
>     C 404 542 8594
>     Ui Blog | @UserInsight | AIM: jonyard
> 
>     An Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Company - 2008, 2009 & 2010
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois



From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Sun Sep 25 22:34:53 2011
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:34:53 -0300
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for
 consumer trust survey
In-Reply-To: <4E7FA77F.7020104@CC.UniVie.ac.at>
References: <20110923142211.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.7104158e4a.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<4E7FA77F.7020104@CC.UniVie.ac.at>
Message-ID: <CAD48TT_ix3QqcM-gx7kGNEXVPFqB-eTdcv3OGPgswXGZfC09Ow@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Wilfried, team,

I arrived a couple of hours, had to sleep in SP because our airport is
being reformed (the Word Soccer Cup, you know, then Olympic games),
but even not reviewing the document itself I agree with him about Red
Cross. Never heard about Yelp and Living Social, GroupOn seems "very
consumer trust" and FourSquare has the potential of being big -
everybody likes to show the "important" check ins. With privacy
impacts maybe not more than the others.

I'll should raise some more specific points later.

Best,
Omar


2011/9/25 Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet <Woeber at cc.univie.ac.at>:
> A couple of thoughts, probably not all too well reviewed and sorted right
> now. It is Sunday late night here :-)
>
> To start with, depending on the countries you want to use this in, the
> Red Cross may not be the perfect site, as it is linked to Christianity.
> There's also a Red Halfmoon and a Red Diamond organisation :-)
>
> A few personal remarks regarding some of the proposed questions...
>
> Q6: I am wondering how useful the explicit mentioning of particular companies
> ? ?or services is in this (global) context.
>
> Although I consider myself almost an Internet-Junkie, I wouldn't know what
> Yelp, Groupon, Living Social or Gilt is. Maybe I'm living on the wrong side
> of the Digital Divide, being a Silver Surfer of the early Internet Days :-)
> Same for FourSquare... Yes, I could use Google :-)
>
> Q8: none of that would fit my use:
> ? ?which is testing new (DNS and DNSsec) technology and use for teaching.
>
> Q9: I wouldn't know what to do with this one?
>
> Q10: wondering - is HTTPS vs unsecured (HTTP) an issue in this context?
>
> Fwiw, hth,
> Wilfried.
>
> lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> I am forwarding below the preliminary questionnaire for the consumer
>> trust survey, attached to this message.
>> (The User Insight team is okay with this being distributed on the Whois
>> email list.)
>> I have copied Jonathan Yardley on this message as a courtesy.
>>
>> We are working with a tight deadline and we need feedback this weekend.
>> I know this is a dedicated
>> team so appreciate your time in off business hours.
>>
>> In particular, please see the last section of questions. ?As the last
>> part of the survey, we would like for the participants to
>> actually experience the Whois lookup. ?We need to decide on a website
>> domain name to use for this purpose.
>> Does anyone have a suggestion for a well known global website we could
>> use in the survey? ?My sense is that
>> Wikipedia would be recognized in Europe and North America but not sure
>> if it would work everywhere.
>> But it would be neutral in the sense that it is not a trading or
>> commercial website.
>>
>> Another question is which Whois lookup page should we use?
>> My thought is to use the InterNIC one because it covers all current
>> registries. ?Here is the link for reference:
>> http://www.internic.net/whois.html
>>
>> I am thinking that InterNIC is more "neutral" than trying to use
>> the Whois page of one of the bigger registries or registrars.
>> Kathy and James - as representatives of the registry and registrar
>> constituency, would especially appreciate your
>> suggestions on this point. ?Note that we would lose the point about
>> domain ads being displayed if we decide to use InterNIC.
>>
>> The alternative would be to choose 3 WHOIS lookup pages. ?The survey
>> would have each participant look at 2 of them and
>> the surveys would be distributed to obtain balanced results among those
>> 3. ?I am just not sure how to pick 3.
>>
>> Please note that all the questions will be translated to the primary
>> language for each country.
>> Also, there are some questions with specific examples that will be
>> modified for appropriate examples in each country.
>> The English questions here are using U.S. examples.
>>
>> Sarmad, I will follow up with you separately on the point about
>> non-Latin characters being unavailable in Whois lookups.
>>
>> Please come back to me with any other questions.
>> Best regards to all,
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>>
>> ? ? -------- Original Message --------
>> ? ? Subject: Version 2
>> ? ? From: Jonathan Yardley <jyardley at userinsight.com
>> ? ? <mailto:jyardley at userinsight.com>>
>> ? ? Date: Fri, September 23, 2011 2:32 pm
>> ? ? To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
>> ? ? <mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>, jmorgan at userinsight.com
>> ? ? <mailto:jmorgan at userinsight.com>, Rachel
>> ? ? Walsh <rwalsh at userinsight.com <mailto:rwalsh at userinsight.com>>
>>
>> ? ? Hi Lynn,
>> ? ? Here is V2. Please socialize with your team. In particular we would
>> ? ? like help with selecting a universal URL for people to search for
>> ? ? the owner of.
>> ? ? Thanks-JCY
>>
>>
>> ? ? Jonathan Yardley
>> ? ? Director, Project Management
>> ? ? jyardley at userinsight.com <mailto:jyardley at userinsight.com>
>>
>> ? ? UserInsight
>> ? ? T 770 391 1099 ext. 1401
>> ? ? C 404 542 8594
>> ? ? Ui Blog | @UserInsight | AIM: jonyard
>>
>> ? ? An Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Company - 2008, 2009 & 2010
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 seth.reiss at lex-ip.com  Sun Sep 25 23:40:11 2011
From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss)
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:40:11 -1000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire
	for	consumer trust survey
In-Reply-To: <F0416A5B-B911-4ED0-9668-DDB8A420F95A@vonarx.ca>
References: <20110924194339.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.cdb28a55d4.wbe@email12.secureserver.net>
	<F0416A5B-B911-4ED0-9668-DDB8A420F95A@vonarx.ca>
Message-ID: <004201cc7bdc$789b3180$69d19480$@reiss@lex-ip.com>

I also like the survey in general but the selection of Whois site and domain name are interrelated. My feeling is that the survey should test how users react to dealing first with a ?thin? Whois because one issue we are to evaluate is the impact of having centralized ?thin? Whois services and decentralized ?thick? Whois services.

 

Internic seems to be a ?thin? Whois in respect to some domain names and a ?thick? Whois in respect to others.  It?s thin for Google.com, somewhat thin for the redcross.org, but thick for Wikipedia.org and UN.org.

 

Of course people do not distrust Google (at least in terms of not being locatable) so I am not sure that Google.com and Internic Whois is the right combination.

 

If we are going to give them a Whois web address, then I would prefer the users experience it ?thin? and have to figure out where to go from there.

 

On another note, I was giving a talk on legal entity names to a room of 150 company lawyers on Friday and asked for a show of hands who knew what Whois was?  Less than 10% responded affirmatively.  I expect that Whois awareness may be somewhat higher on the part of paralegals in the US since it is the paralegals who generally have the task of looking behind businesses.

 

Thanks Lynn, for all the good work.

 

Seth  

 

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 5:18 PM
To: <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org; Jonathan Yardley
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for consumer trust survey

 

Makes sense to me. 

 

In that regard I agree with your interNiC suggestion. 

 

Kim

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


On 2011-09-24, at 22:43, <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:

Thanks Kim,

We missed you in L.A. but understand.

Your suggestion of the United Nations or Red Cross are great!

Thanks for your time and thought in reviewing.

 

I am taking this feedback and Sharon's comments back to User Insight for

further consultation.

 

If anyone else has further comments or suggestions, please let me know tomorrow.

 

The predicament we have about which Whois page or site to use is that in the

qualitative interviews, it was clear that there is a very low awareness that there

is any kind of look-up or directory service for domain name owners.  And the name

"Whois" is certainly not well known.  We can expect that almost all the online survey recipients

will not be familiar with the term "Whois".

 

Just my impression was that the in person interviews showed that when people were

asked to research a website, they used several different methods and did not always

find a Whois page.

 

In this next step of research, the challenge is that this will be an online survey and

people have to have pretty specific direction and choices.   So we do want them to "find"

a Whois page.

 

Best regards,

Lynn

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for
consumer trust survey
From: kim at vonarx.ca
Date: Sat, September 24, 2011 9:51 pm
To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org, "Jonathan Yardley" <jyardley at userinsight.com>

Dear Lynn et al:

Thank you very much for all the hard work.

I think the questionnaire is very good. I was quite impressed by the
simplicity and insight it conveyed.

With respect to the WHOIS service they should be using, I suggest that
should be open, i.e, the user should try to find one for themselves. 
Having said that, I am not sure how much or what kind of beneficial data
that would add, but I think it may be a point worth raising.

With respect to the Internet site, I would suggest we go with the United
Nations website. I believe that all countries should be aware of the UN. 
Alternatively, how about the Red Cross?

Finally, with respect to the questions themselves. I think that there
should be something more in there with respect to concerns and or
questions those participants may have about the WHOIS service. Indeed,
there should be section for someone to does have domain name to look up
his/her own information and seeing what is out there about him/her and
then to have some information on what his/her thoughts are about that.

I believe the structure of the questions if well thought out and flows
quite nicely.

All in all, I believe this is well done. Thanks again for the hard work. 
I am very sorry that I did not make it to the LA meeting, but things are
crazy on my end here on the personal front and I am really barely keeping
my head above water.

All the best,

Kim


> <html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
> font-size:10pt;"><div>Dear All,</div>
> <div>I am forwarding below the preliminary questionnaire for the consumer
> trust survey, attached to this message.</div>
> <div>(The User Insight team is okay with this being distributed on the
> Whois email list.)</div>
> <div>I have copied Jonathan Yardley on this message as a courtesy.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>We are working with a tight deadline and we need feedback this
> weekend.&nbsp; I know this is a dedicated</div>
> <div>team so appreciate your time in off business hours.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>In particular, please see the last section of
> questions.&nbsp;&nbsp;As the last part of the survey,&nbsp;we would like
> for the participants to</div>
> <div>actually experience the Whois lookup.&nbsp; We need&nbsp;to decide
> on&nbsp;a website domain name to use for this purpose.</div>
> <div>Does anyone have a suggestion for a well known global website we
> could use in the survey?&nbsp; My sense is that</div>
> <div>Wikipedia would be recognized in Europe and North America but not
> sure if it would work everywhere.</div>
> <div>But it would be neutral in the sense that it is not a trading or
> commercial website.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>Another question is which Whois lookup page should we use?</div>
> <div>My thought is to use the InterNIC one because it covers all current
> registries.&nbsp; Here is the link for reference:</div>
> <div>
> href="http://www.internic.net/whois.html">http://www.internic.net/whois.html <http://www.internic.net/whois.html%3c/div%3e> </div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>I am thinking&nbsp;that InterNIC&nbsp;is more "neutral" than trying
> to use the&nbsp;Whois page of&nbsp;one of the bigger registries or
> registrars.</div>
> <div>Kathy and James - as representatives of the registry and registrar
> constituency, would especially appreciate your</div>
> <div>suggestions on this point.&nbsp; Note that we would lose the point
> about domain ads being displayed if we decide to use InterNIC.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>The alternative would be to choose 3 WHOIS lookup pages.&nbsp; The
> survey would have each participant look at 2 of them and</div>
> <div>the surveys would be distributed to obtain balanced results among
> those 3.&nbsp; I am just not sure how to pick 3.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>Please note that all the questions will be translated to the primary
> language for each country.</div>
> <div>Also, there are some questions with specific examples that will be
> modified for appropriate examples in each country.</div>
> <div>The English questions here are using U.S. examples.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>Sarmad, I will follow up with you separately on the point about
> non-Latin characters being unavailable in Whois lookups.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>Please come back to me with any other questions.</div>
> <div>Best regards to all,</div>
> <div>Lynn</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px;
> FONT-FAMILY: verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
> id=replyBlockquote webmail="1">
> <DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
> Version 2<BR>From: Jonathan Yardley &lt;
> href="mailto:jyardley at userinsight.com">jyardley at userinsight.com&gt;<BR>Date:
> Fri, September 23, 2011 2:32 pm<BR>To: 
> href="mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com">lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com,
> jmorgan at userinsight.com,
> Rachel<BR>Walsh &lt;
> href="mailto:rwalsh at userinsight.com">rwalsh at userinsight.com&gt;<BR><BR>Hi
> Lynn,<BR>Here is V2. Please socialize with your team. In particular we
> would like help with selecting a universal URL for people to search for
> the owner of.<BR>Thanks-JCY<BR><BR><BR>Jonathan Yardley<BR>Director,
> Project Management<BR>
> href="mailto:jyardley at userinsight.com">jyardley at userinsight.com<BR><BR>UserInsight<BR>T
> 770 391 1099 ext. 1401<BR>C 404 542 8594<BR>Ui Blog | @UserInsight | AIM:
> jonyard<BR><BR>An Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Company - 2008, 2009 &amp;
> 2010<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>_______________________________________________
> 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/20110925/a6dabda3/attachment.html 

From Donnerhacke at gmx.de  Mon Sep 19 19:51:45 2011
From: Donnerhacke at gmx.de (Uwe Donnerhacke)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:51:45 +0200
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Flight delayed for Lutz Donnerhacke
Message-ID: <4E779D51.7010406@gmx.de>

Hi all,

my brother (Lutz Donnerhacke) just phoned me from Paris, that his flight 
is delayed by 20 hours.
Defect at jet engine shortly before takeoff.
He will arrive tomorrow (20.9.2011) around noon at the airport.


Greetings
  Uwe