From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Mon Nov 7 17:59:17 2011 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:59:17 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft letter to compliance - YOUR FEEDBACK PLEASE In-Reply-To: <20111103095945.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.cb1a6c18d7.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111103095945.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.cb1a6c18d7.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <012401cc9d76$f8acfcd0$ea06f670$@reiss@lex-ip.com> I think I agree with most of James? comments concerning what is not within Compliance?s purview but I am wondering if we cannot keep the content but soften it so that it does not sound like a directive to Compliance. So, in other words, Compliance could study and respond to a GNSO?s studies not because it is obliged to but because it could help improve the quality of the work that it is tasked with. As far as shortening, if it?s going to take the form of a letter in the appendix, I am wondering if shortening is really that important. Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:00 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Draft letter to compliance - YOUR FEEDBACK PLEASE Emily and Team: My comments / edits attached. Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft letter to compliance - YOUR FEEDBACK PLEASE From: Emily Taylor Date: Thu, November 03, 2011 7:09 am To: rt4-whois at icann.org Hi all In Dakar, as a result of our communications with the Compliance team, we agreed to lift a lot of the detail out of our report, and write them a letter with our findings. Here is my first draft. I would be grateful for your honest feedback, and particularly suggestions for shortening it. Thanks 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/20111107/b57b556a/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Mon Nov 7 18:06:30 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:06:30 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft letter to compliance - YOUR FEEDBACK PLEASE In-Reply-To: <4eb81c79.6561340a.3411.ffffc94dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <20111103095945.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.cb1a6c18d7.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <4eb81c79.6561340a.3411.ffffc94dSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Seth, James Many thanks for your feedback. It would be helpful if you could suggest some edits in the text to take it on to the next stage. Kind regards Emily On 7 November 2011 17:59, Seth M Reiss wrote: > I think I agree with most of James? comments concerning what is not within > Compliance?s purview but I am wondering if we cannot keep the content but > soften it so that it does not sound like a directive to Compliance. So, in > other words, Compliance could study and respond to a GNSO?s studies not > because it is obliged to but because it could help improve the quality of > the work that it is tasked with.**** > > ** ** > > As far as shortening, if it?s going to take the form of a letter in the > appendix, I am wondering if shortening is really that important. **** > > ** ** > > Seth **** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *James M. Bladel > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:00 AM > *To:* Emily Taylor > *Cc:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Draft letter to compliance - YOUR FEEDBACK > PLEASE**** > > ** ** > > Emily and Team: > > My comments / edits attached.**** > > > Thanks--**** > > ** ** > > J.**** > > ** ** > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft letter to compliance - YOUR FEEDBACK PLEASE > From: Emily Taylor > Date: Thu, November 03, 2011 7:09 am > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > Hi all > > In Dakar, as a result of our communications with the Compliance team, we > agreed to lift a lot of the detail out of our report, and write them a > letter with our findings. > > Here is my first draft. I would be grateful for your honest feedback, and > particularly suggestions for shortening it. > > Thanks > > 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**** > > -- * * 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/20111107/e83be923/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Mon Nov 7 19:04:31 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 19:04:31 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDNs In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Sarmad, Wilfried Please can I ask you to review this response on IDNs from staff, and update your IDN section accordingly. It would be helpful to have a report on this from one of you on Wednesday's call. Kind regards Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Denise Michel Date: 1 November 2011 20:30 Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] IDNs To: rt4-whois at icann.org Dear Team members, I inadvertently included a draft answer for IDN-related question #3 in the previous document I sent you. Please disregard and use the attached as Staff's response, which provides more (and more precise) information. I apologize for any inconvenience. As always, please email me if you need additional 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 Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Denise Michel wrote: > Dear Team members, > > Attached is ICANN Staff's response to the IDN-related questions you > conveyed last month. > > Please let me know if you need additional 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 > _______________________________________________ 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/20111107/61cbeaa8/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: QUESTIONS FROM THE WHOIS POLICY REVIEW TEAM TO ICANN STAFF UPDATED for delivery.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 182146 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111107/61cbeaa8/QUESTIONSFROMTHEWHOISPOLICYREVIEWTEAMTOICANNSTAFFUPDATEDfordelivery.docx From lutz at iks-jena.de Tue Nov 8 09:52:51 2011 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:52:51 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next steps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111108095251.GB28140@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 06:23:51PM +0000, Emily Taylor wrote: > - Lutz had a suggestion about some sort of portal which aggregated all > WHOIS data and provided reverse look up capability being run by a neutral > source (ICANN?). I think this may have grown out of our Thick/Thin > discussions, but am not sure. Lutz: would you be happy to draft out some > first ideas on this one for us? Yep, will do. Hopefully today, but definitly before our next telco. From sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk Tue Nov 8 11:54:04 2011 From: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk (Sarmad Hussain) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:54:04 +0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next steps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4eb91852.850a0e0a.250f.208f@mx.google.com> Dear All, Here is some text around the internationalized registration data for further review and discussion. Regards, Sarmad From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:24 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next steps Hi all As promised, I'll be working through my comments on the mega-huge draft this week, and circulating to the list. If anyone else feels moved to do this too, please do so, and we'll ask Alice to hold the pen and consolidate the draft s if there are different proposed edits (there are bound to be). My headline thoughts on the draft are: - It's very good in places - The narrative needs to come across more strongly, and having agreed our draft recommendations will help us with this, as will the executive summary. - There are some chunks of text which I'm struggling to know where to fit in (if at all). - Having had our discussion with Compliance, I'm minded to take out a lot of the detail on the compliance effort and append a detailed letter with suggested actions to the report, with conclusions and headline recommendations in the text. Lastly, before our next call, can we think about and circulate any recommendations which fell off the radar screen during the last meeting. The ones I can think of are: - Lutz had a suggestion about some sort of portal which aggregated all WHOIS data and provided reverse look up capability being run by a neutral source (ICANN?). I think this may have grown out of our Thick/Thin discussions, but am not sure. Lutz: would you be happy to draft out some first ideas on this one for us? - Sarmad: We have a placeholder for an IDN recommendation, and also for a brief bit of text for the report. Could you let us have this as soon as possible? Thanks 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/20111108/e85c32a2/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internationalization of Domain Name Registration Data.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19905 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111108/e85c32a2/InternationalizationofDomainNameRegistrationData.docx From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Nov 8 13:21:02 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 05:21:02 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] AGENDA - Confcall 9 November - 11:00 UTC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, As you know, your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 9 November at 11:00 UTC. Please find enclosed the agenda: 1. Roll-call & apologies 2. Adopt agenda 3. Summary of the Dakar meeting 4. Review the letter to ICANN compliance 5. Discuss (SH) & (WW)'s report on IDNs 6. Status of the User insight study (report or slides?) 7. Discuss (KVA)'s paper on ccTLDs 8. How to meet the 30 November deadline: define an action plan 9. A.O.B It may also be found on the public wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+23+-+9+November+2011 Thanks, Very best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111108/b970d7af/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Tue Nov 8 16:06:46 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:06:46 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations Message-ID: Hi Alice Before our next call, please would you add our agreed recommendations from Dakar into the draft report, and delete all the other recommendations in the text. I think this will clear things up a lot. Thanks 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/20111108/c22a3d10/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Nov 8 20:10:32 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 12:10:32 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Material - conference call Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached material for your conference call tomorrow ? 11:00 UTC: Draft report Wiki:https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report IDNs Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Internationalization+of+Domain+Name+Registration+Data ccTLDs (+ appendix) Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/ccTLD Note from Kim: I have added .nl and .ca. I was not able to read the Nominet report as when I opened the file the text was all blurred out. I have also attached the CIRA policy which I have referenced in my description of the CIRA WHOIS initiatives. Letter to ICANN Compliance Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Letter+to+ICANN+Compliance Thanks, Best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111108/0739f73a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft report - consolidated 5 - 8Nov2011.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 2163890 bytes Desc: Draft report - consolidated 5 - 8Nov2011.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111108/0739f73a/Draftreport-consolidated5-8Nov2011.docx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internationalization of Domain Name Registration Data.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19905 bytes Desc: Internationalization of Domain Name Registration Data.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111108/0739f73a/InternationalizationofDomainNameRegistrationData.docx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ccTLD compilation of ICANN consulation.doc Type: application/msword Size: 472064 bytes Desc: ccTLD compilation of ICANN consulation.doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111108/0739f73a/ccTLDcompilationofICANNconsulation.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Appendix A CIRA Law Enforcement Dislcosure.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 97774 bytes Desc: Appendix A CIRA Law Enforcement Dislcosure.pdf Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111108/0739f73a/AppendixACIRALawEnforcementDislcosure.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to compliance JMB Edits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1293069 bytes Desc: Letter to compliance JMB Edits.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111108/0739f73a/LettertocomplianceJMBEdits.docx From susank at fb.com Wed Nov 9 07:12:39 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 07:12:39 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Message-ID: Attached is a draft of recommendations for adopting Specification 4 of the AGB for existing gTlds. At the end of the document are rough thoughts on ICANN creating a voluntary program for registrars to be considered A list registrars. This would recognize the responsible registars and the proactive service they provide. I will not be on the call tonight since it is 3 am my time. Not sure anything I would say would make any sense. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111109/8a41415d/attachment.html From susank at fb.com Wed Nov 9 07:28:36 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 07:28:36 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Thoughts on Proxy service providers Message-ID: I know we came to a decision at the Dakar meeting on Proxy registrations but I have been giving this a lot of thought since then. I am uncomfortable with not addressing best practices for proxy registrations. I agree with the argument that a registrar does not have knowledge of the contractual agreement between the proxy service and licensee (or in my view the "true" registrant) if there is no relationship between the proxy service provider and the registrar. For instance, I may request a law firm to register a domain name on behalf of Facebook. The registrar does not have any idea what contractual agreement exists between Facebook and the law firm. A registrar that has a subsidiary set up to provide proxy service or enters into a partnership and recommends a proxy service at the time of registration does have knowledge of that contractual agreement and should be held responsible for the enforceable requirements that we outlined for privacy registrations. I would recommend that a registrar would be required to disclose their relationship with a proxy service provider to ICANN and that proxy service would have to adhere to the enforceable requirements through the registrar's accreditation. The reality of the proxy services is that most are provided by companies that are either a subsidiary of a registrar or in a partnership with a registrar. If we ignore this growing trend of proxy registrations then proxy registrations will continue to significantly impact the accuracy of the WHOIS data. Domains by Proxy runs a responsible and responsive proxy service we should insure that all registrar run proxy service providers provide the same high level of service. Good luck tonight. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111109/2999303a/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 9 08:04:47 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 00:04:47 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call today @ 11:00 UTC Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Your next conference call is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 9 November 2011** 11:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Policy+RT+ConfCall+-+9+Nov+2011&iso=20111109T11&ah=1&am=30 PASSWORD: 27318 followed by # Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+23+-+9+November+2011 Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Audio-cast (silent observers): http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u Dial-in numbers: Please find below a table which encapsulates dial-in numbers for your countries of residence. Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list which is available at: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Australia 1 800 009 820 1 800 036 775 Sydney T +61 290372962 Melbourne T +61 399996500 Brisbane T +61 731777546 Austria L - 0 800 295 858 M - 0 800 295 138 T - +43 720 882 638 Belgium L - 0800 79210 M ? 0800 79218 T - +32 78 480 286 Brazil L - 0800 891 1597 M - 0800 891 1598 T - +55 613 717 2040 Canada 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 France 0800 90 25 56 T - +33 170618347 Germany L - 0800 1016 120 G - M 0800 1016 124 Russia 8 10 8002 535 3011 T - +7 499 650 7835 United Kingdom 0800 032 6646 T - +44 207 099 0867 United States 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 T ? local toll number ; M ? mobile preferred number ; L ? landline preferred number Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for this call. Thank you, Very best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen at icann.org Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111109/82e04bad/attachment.html From lutz at iks-jena.de Wed Nov 9 08:51:26 2011 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:51:26 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Thoughts on Proxy service providers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111109085126.GA20976@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 07:28:36AM +0000, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > I am uncomfortable with not addressing best practices for proxy > registrations. I agree with the argument that a registrar does > not have knowledge of the contractual agreement between the proxy > service and licensee (or in my view the "true" registrant) if there > is no relationship between the proxy service provider and the registrar. > For instance, I may request a law firm to register a domain name on behalf > of Facebook. The registrar does not have any idea what contractual > agreement exists between Facebook and the law firm. >From the ICANN point of view, the registration is done by the law firm so the domain has an owner-c pointing to the law firm and the admin-c pointing to a law firm's attorney (that's the point of proxy services). So for all policies within ICANN the contract between the law firm and Facebook is irrelevant. The law firm is the true registrant. It's up to Facebook to have a contract with allows them to control the proxy service. It's not ICANN's duty. Plain and simple. So far from the Dakar meeting. You points are valid, if proxy services are considered as beeing not the real registrant. Then a full blown new construct within ICANN needs to be established. From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 9 10:55:39 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 02:55:39 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Please join the adobe room Message-ID: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111109/f8341fb2/attachment.html From lutz at iks-jena.de Wed Nov 9 11:22:26 2011 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:22:26 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN Message-ID: <20111109112226.GA23343@belenus.iks-jena.de> Proposal: Summary: ICANN should set up and maintain a web interface to access all the WHOIS services in order to ease access to the WHOIS data. Presumption: The AoC requires that "ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information." Observation: An User Insight Report came up with the following results: + Almost nobody is aware of whois + Almost nobody is able to query a whois server correctly + Whois queries were done on websites which occur first in the search engine results. Usually those pages are overloaded with advertisments. Detailed recommendation: ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual website to allow "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information" even for those people which have problems with the plain WHOIS protocol. The WHOIS information should be collected by following the thin WHOIS approach starting at whois.iana.org. The service should display the contractural relationships which are revealed by the WHOIS referals in a clear and understandable way. The results should be mark clearly the relevant information "including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact" data. The server needs to be run by ICANN itself, because the "timely, unrestricted and public access" is usually rate limited, stripped or even blocked by the various WHOIS server administrators for uncontractual third party access. ICANN itself is the only party having the power to overcome those limits using its contratual compliance. From lutz at iks-jena.de Wed Nov 9 11:44:19 2011 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:44:19 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft letter to compliance - YOUR FEEDBACK PLEASE Message-ID: <20111109114419.GB23343@belenus.iks-jena.de> Current: 10. Investigate the reasons why reporting of inaccurate WHOIS data has fallen, despite continuing high levels of inaccurate WHOIS data. Report on the findings. My proposal: 10. Investigate the reasons why reporting of inaccurate WHOIS data has fallen, despite continuing high levels of inaccurate WHOIS data. Classify those findings by assumed valid and compliant use, i.e. privacy or proxy services. Find out, if the users assume special entries to be legitimate despite they are really not compliant. From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 9 13:56:27 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:56:27 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Note Pod Content from call - 9 Nov In-Reply-To: <10746742.13451.1320846567268.JavaMail.breezesvc@pacna7app08> Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, For your convenience, please find enclosed the note pod content of your call held on 9 November. Kindly note that these are draft notes and that Staff will create a preliminary report. https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+23+-+9+November+2011 Please be kindly reminded that conference call material is posted at: Thanks, Kind regards Alice AGENDA 1. Roll-call & apologies 2. Adopt agenda 3. Summary of the Dakar meeting 4. Review the letter to ICANN compliance 5. Discuss (SH) & (WW)'s report on IDNs 6. Status of the User insight study (report or slides?) 7. Discuss (KVA)'s paper on ccTLDs 8. How to meet the 30 November deadline: define an action plan 9. A.O.B PARTICIPANTS Sarmad Hussain, Lutz Donnerhacke, Emily Taylor, James Bladel, Michael Yakushev, Seth Reiss, Kathy Kleiman, Olof Nordling, Alice Jansen APOLOGIES Sharon Lemon, Peter Nettlefold, Denise Michel, Susan Kawaguchi, Bill Smith? NOTES 1. Agenda adopted 2. Dakar activities: (KK) provides an overview. Recommendations still need to be wordsmithed but they represent a balance. (SK) what we are doing on proxy - sufficient? (JB) ok with (SK)'s disclosure proposal but question is: then what? what comes after that? Distinction between what we are doing (fostering security climate, enhanced professionalism, voluntary best pratices). (ET) There might processes for RAA review. Continue (SK)'s thread on the list and craft a recommendation on best practices and end-user education (SK) + (JB) + (KK). Principles >< practices. 3. Letter to compliance - with reference to (JB)'s sentence - look to compliance as a good actor - key awareness of operational challenges involved. (JB) to make edits accordingly by the end of business today. provide explanation on either side or argument (LD) letter contains a lot of issues that did not write down - (ET) to incorporate (LD)'s point (LD) will circulate to text These edits to be approved - next call 4. (SH) - overview IDN paper (MY) addition to this - unify ccTLD & gTLD process. Legal differences betweek gTLD Moscow and ccTLD ru - hard to explain to people. Ease the access to information and friendly-user internet - Possibility to contact in ASCII format (applies to every registrant). (KK) suggestion to work with someone else's recommendations on this. What do we mean by accuracy and what is the tolerable level? Cross that in a recommendation. Issue of IDNs and translation. (ET) let's tease out recommendation bullet points. (SH) and (MY) to bring document to next stage --> 1 or 2 recommendations. (AJ) to send compliance letters' recommendations on policy to (SH) 5. User Insight (AJ) to coordinate with consultant on whether a report will be provided or not. (SK) and (SR) to help (LG) consumer study 6. ccTLDs (KK) include ccTLDs response - appendix. (AJ) to revisit (KVA)'s paper and to circulate compilation crafted in September 7. 30 November deadline Section that are open and cast in stone - indication (SH)'s proposal (ET) poll Members on their November schedule 2 days of time between now and end of November -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111109/fc87639a/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Thu Nov 10 07:57:01 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 23:57:01 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] On behalf of Julie Hedlund Message-ID: Dear Emily Taylor and the WHOIS Review Team members, Per the Board Resolution passed on 28 October 2011 at: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#5 and listed below, the Board directed staff to forward SAC051 ?SSAC Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure? to ICANN?s Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations for their advice, if any, with regards to implementing the SSAC recommendations, and to forward SAC 051 to the Whois Review Team. Please refer to SAC051 at:http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051.pdf and, in particular, to the recommendations listed below. Best regards, Julie Hedlund -- Alice Jansen Assistant, Organizational Reviews 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111109/027d8e3e/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Nov 11 00:06:23 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:06:23 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] On behalf of Julie Hedlund Message-ID: <20111110170623.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.702f34f8f8.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111110/1df533ce/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Nov 11 05:15:00 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:15:00 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Letter to Compliance (Additional Edit) Message-ID: <20111110221500.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.e59aceaf30.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111110/a1c2724d/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to compliance JMB Edits Nov 10.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1370469 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111110/a1c2724d/LettertocomplianceJMBEditsNov10.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Fri Nov 11 09:36:42 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:36:42 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Letter to Compliance (Additional Edit) In-Reply-To: <20111110221500.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.e59aceaf30.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111110221500.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.e59aceaf30.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi James Thanks, your text changes are very helpful. I have also looked at your other comments throughout the text. Would you like to propose alternative language to build on your comments? I would appreciate it if you could do so. Kind regards Emily On 11 November 2011 05:15, James M. Bladel wrote: > Team: > > Per our most recent call, I've made a few slight edits to the Letter to > Compliance (draft). The changes are: > > * Corrected "Registries and Registries" to read "Registries and > Registrars" in two instances. > * Struck "regulated" and inserted "monitored." > * Added bullet point noting the technical & operational challenges faced > by ICANN Compliance. To ensure that this is appropriately attributed, I > put this squarely on my head (at minimum). > > Thank you, > > J. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111111/8dbd06b4/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Nov 11 21:40:40 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Letter to Compliance (Additional Edit) Message-ID: <20111111144040.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.0bba216033.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111111/84a69800/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to compliance JMB Edits Nov 11.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1375234 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111111/84a69800/LettertocomplianceJMBEditsNov11.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Sat Nov 12 09:19:44 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:19:44 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Letter to Compliance (Additional Edit) In-Reply-To: <20111111144040.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.0bba216033.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111111144040.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.0bba216033.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi James Thanks for bringing this on. I have gone through the draft, and accepted most of your changes. I have also developed the text in some areas to reflect your comments. Please take a look and see if they address your concerns. You have rightly pointed out that some of our comments are directed more to the community in general, and I think you're right to ask for them to be taken out of this letter. I think that, instead, we should keep hold of them for the full report, because they highlight important failings in the system, notably a wasteful lack of a joined up approach with regard to studies. Studies are commissioned in one area of the community (eg gNSO). If those studies highlight issues for another area eg for operational improvements, then I believe it is appropriate for the corporation to review and direct corporate resources to respond and make improvements. At the moment, the downside of the decentralised, distributed nature of the process (which otherwise has many benefits) is that it is possible for everyone in the "supply chain" to shrug their shoulders and say it's someone else's responsibility. Let's talk further about this - we don't want to saddle the corporation with an obligation to respond to everything that happens, but where there is significant spend (eg a budget request that requires board approval), then there should be board consideration of the results, and a workstream that flows from it within a predictable time period. So, what I've done is move that deleted text into a separate document, so that we don't forget to make these points in the full report. I attach both documents, and look forward to further comments on the list. Kind regards Emily On 11 November 2011 21:40, James M. Bladel wrote: > Version du jour for Nov 11 (Attached) > > Note that I changed the statistical figures, and moved the chart below the > narrative. Some phrases were better directed at other organs (e.g., GNSO > or ICANN Community) so I either changed or removed those. > > Thanks-- > > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Letter to Compliance (Additional Edit) > From: Emily Taylor > Date: Fri, November 11, 2011 3:36 am > To: "James M. Bladel" > Cc: RT4 WHOIS > > Hi James > > Thanks, your text changes are very helpful. I have also looked at your > other comments throughout the text. Would you like to propose alternative > language to build on your comments? I would appreciate it if you could do > so. > > Kind regards > > > Emily > > > On 11 November 2011 05:15, James M. Bladel wrote: > >> Team: >> >> Per our most recent call, I've made a few slight edits to the Letter to >> Compliance (draft). The changes are: >> >> * Corrected "Registries and Registries" to read "Registries and >> Registrars" in two instances. >> * Struck "regulated" and inserted "monitored." >> * Added bullet point noting the technical & operational challenges faced >> by ICANN Compliance. To ensure that this is appropriately attributed, I >> put this squarely on my head (at minimum). >> >> Thank you, >> >> J. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > -- * * 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/20111112/ecd49c40/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Compliance - more general comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 115148 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111112/ecd49c40/Compliance-moregeneralcomments.docx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to compliance ET edits 12 Nov.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1371534 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111112/ecd49c40/LettertocomplianceETedits12Nov.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Sat Nov 12 09:22:18 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:22:18 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance letter - information please Message-ID: Hi Alice You will see from the Compliance letter that James has highlighted a piece of text (paragraph 3.4 on page 6) relating to the objectives of the compliance effort. He has pointed out that this relates exclusively to registries, and I wonder if you can find an equivalent publicly documented statement relating to registries. James suggests that the presentation of the compliance team in London may have the answer. Would you be able to investigate for us, and provide us with a suitable reference? Thanks 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/20111112/1acdd443/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to compliance ET edits 12 Nov.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1371534 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111112/1acdd443/LettertocomplianceETedits12Nov.docx