From emily at emilytaylor.eu Mon Nov 14 10:38:31 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:38:31 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] CENTR WHOIS survey information? Message-ID: Hi Patrick I hope you are well. You may recall that a couple of months ago, we were in correspondence about whether CENTR could provide any anonymised data with regard to WHOIS policy and implementation to the ICANN WHOIS Review Team, which I chair. You indicated that you would be prepared to share some information with us. We are aiming to finalise our draft report by the end of this month, and therefore I would greatly appreciate if you could indicate when you will be able to share the information with us. Kind regards Emily Taylor Chair, WHOIS Review Team -- * * 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/20111114/d87dcc6b/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Nov 14 14:51:24 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:51:24 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance letter - information please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EC12AEC.1000008@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, I would like to applaud Emily, James and all who contributed to this excellent compliance letter. I skimmed it earlier, but read it in great detail recently. It is a treatise in itself, and a valuable audit of the Compliance team, its communications, its action, and its reputation in the community. I major deliverable right there. One small edit on my side -- I'll join James in noting my sympathy to the challenges face by the ICANN Compliance team, and have edited the section to reflect it. It's below and attached to this email: At least two members of the Review Team notes that Registries and Registrars are sympathetic to the technical and operational challenges faced by the ICANN Compliance team Best, Kathy > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111114/45f1447d/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to compliance ET edits 12 Nov-1 kk ed.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1330688 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111114/45f1447d/LettertocomplianceETedits12Nov-1kked.doc From denise.michel at icann.org Mon Nov 14 23:01:20 2011 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:01:20 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance letter - information please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Emily. The text noted by James (3.4) was taken from this webpage: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/registrar-compliance.htm The similar webpage for registrars is found here: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/registrar-compliance.htm Similar information was provided in Staff slide presentations and answers (see https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Information+Provided+by+ICANN+Staff ). Please let me know if you need anything further on this from Staff. 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 Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111114/9213c6b0/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Mon Nov 14 23:56:50 2011 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:56:50 +1100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next steps [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E03FF8B@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello all, I was just working through the letter to compliance, and wanted to agree that this is very good, so thanks to all who have been involved in drafted that. In reading through it, I do have a couple of questions about some of the text around accuracy, and wanted to check some of the wording against the recommendations that we agreed in Dakar. However, I can't seem to find those recommendations anywhere. I recall we worked through those on our last afternoon, and I thought we had agreed a complete (or near to complete) set of recommendations on accuracy (regular studies, 50% yearly improvements etc etc), but I just can't seem to find them on the wiki or in any emails. Could someone please point me towards those? Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2011 5:24 AM 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 -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111115/9a252ede/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Tue Nov 15 09:08:40 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:08:40 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance letter - information please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That's very helpful. Thanks, Denise On 14 November 2011 23:01, Denise Michel wrote: > Hi, Emily. > > The text noted by James (3.4) was taken from this webpage: > http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/registrar-compliance.htm > > The similar webpage for registrars is found here: > http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/registrar-compliance.htm > > Similar information was provided in Staff slide presentations and answers > (see > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Information+Provided+by+ICANN+Staff > ). > > Please let me know if you need anything further on this from Staff. > > 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 Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: > >> 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. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20111115/0eece504/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Nov 15 09:18:09 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:18:09 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Next steps [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E03FF8B@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Dear Peter, Attached you will find the recommendations on accuracy. Note that this document is available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+Recommendations These recommendations are also available in the latest version of the draft report (8 November 2011) which may be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report Thanks, Best regards Alice -- 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 From: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:56:50 -0800 To: Emily Taylor >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Next steps [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hello all, I was just working through the letter to compliance, and wanted to agree that this is very good, so thanks to all who have been involved in drafted that. In reading through it, I do have a couple of questions about some of the text around accuracy, and wanted to check some of the wording against the recommendations that we agreed in Dakar. However, I can?t seem to find those recommendations anywhere. I recall we worked through those on our last afternoon, and I thought we had agreed a complete (or near to complete) set of recommendations on accuracy (regular studies, 50% yearly improvements etc etc), but I just can?t seem to find them on the wiki or in any emails. Could someone please point me towards those? Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2011 5:24 AM 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 -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111115/50c9dee7/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recommendations - Dakar - V1 (5).docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 24645 bytes Desc: Recommendations - Dakar - V1 (5).docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111115/50c9dee7/Recommendations-Dakar-V15.docx From susank at fb.com Tue Nov 15 17:18:24 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:18:24 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Message-ID: Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week. From: Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB 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/20111115/8a9fcaa8/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WRT THICK WHOIS MODELrecommendations draft 103111.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19215 bytes Desc: WRT THICK WHOIS MODELrecommendations draft 103111.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111115/8a9fcaa8/WRTTHICKWHOISMODELrecommendationsdraft103111.docx From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Nov 15 21:59:38 2011 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:59:38 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] On behalf of Julie Hedlund In-Reply-To: <20111110170623.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.702f34f8f8.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: James, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was out of the office. Here is the Resolution and also the recommendations from the report. I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Julie Recommendations from Security and Stability Advisory Committee Report on Whois Terminology & Structure (SAC051) Whereas, WHOIS service has been an important information service for the Internet community, and is part of all ICANN TLD contracts. Whereas, the shortcomings of the WHOIS protocol have been known for some time. Whereas, on 20 September 2011, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published a report "SSAC Report on Domain Name WHOIS Terminology and Structure" (SAC 051), including specific recommendations aimed at clarity of terminology and structure with regard to discussions regarding WHOIS. Resolved (2011.10.28.26), the Board hereby acknowledges the receipt of SAC 051, and thanks SSAC and other contributors for their efforts in the creation of the report. Resolved (2011.10.28.27), the Board directs staff to produce, in consultation with the community, a roadmap for the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051. Resolved (2011.10.28.28), the Board directs staff to forward SAC 051 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 SAC051 Recommendations: Recommendation 1: The ICANN community should adopt the terminology outlined in this report in documents and discussions, in particular: ? Domain Name Registration Data (DNRD). The data that domain name registrants provide when registering a domain name and that registrars or registries collects. ? Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (DNRD-AP). The components of a (standard) communications exchange?queries and responses?that specify the access to DNRD. ? Doman Name Registration Data Directory Service (DNRD-DS). The service(s) offered by domain name registries and registrars to implement the DNRD-AP and to provide access to DNRD-DSD. Additional terminology includes ?DNRDe,? ?DNRD Policy,? ?DNRD-DS Policy,? ?Internationalized DNRD,? and ?Localized DNRD.? The term ?WHOIS? should only be used when referring to the protocol as currently specified in RFC 3912. Recommendation 2: The ICANN community should evaluate and adopt a replacement domain name registration data access protocol that supports the query and display of Internationalized DNRD as well as addressing the relevant recommendations in SAC 003, SAC 027 and SAC 033. Recommendation 3: The ICANN community should develop a uniform and standard framework for accessing DNRD that would provide mechanisms to define and implement a range of verification methods, credential services, and access control capabilities. On 11/10/11 7:06 PM, "James Bladel" wrote: Hi Alice and Team: I received a similar request from another channel (GNSO), so perhaps it could be helpful to list the specific recommendations? (Terminology, structure, etc.) Just a thought... Thanks! J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rt4-whois] On behalf of Julie Hedlund From: Alice Jansen Date: Thu, November 10, 2011 1:57 am To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" Cc: Julie Hedlund 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111115/d46fa278/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Tue Nov 15 22:44:48 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:44:48 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] On behalf of Julie Hedlund Message-ID: <20111115154448.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.8e73565d8c.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111115/517e430f/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 16 16:42:17 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:42:17 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] ccTLDs - consolidation Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's request, please find attached a v2 of Kim's document. Note that this version also includes the Nominet report as well as public comments. This document is available on your private wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/ccTLDs On your private wiki your will also find a compilation of all the feedback you received in Singapore: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Singapore+feedback Thanks, Best regards Alice -- 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/20111116/f70535a1/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu Nov 17 14:55:56 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EC5207C.3060107@kathykleiman.com> Dear Susan, I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with the searches was painful. Knowing that you struggle with this issue every day is even worse. However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries I don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as many questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net. To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both managed the database for .COM, .ORG and NET, and also registered domain names into it. In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4 registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more competition in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of ICANN's work to introduce competition into the domain name space), the registrars began banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then purchased by Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of the Whois information. It was an element of the competitive nature of the new domain name space to break up the information so one registry would not own and control it all. The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 100 million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be able to bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the registration business, as well as creating a series of additional business functions. It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we heard from the Registrars in the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore with us) Registrars remain very committed to this model, and for legitimate reasons. Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous. When the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after competitive applications), among the first things it had to do was convert the ORG registrations to thick ones. There were only a few million registrations at the time and it was still an enormous and delicate task. It was a huge moment. Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration. These websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability of the Net would be one to study closely and carefully. The difficulties, not to mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous. Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our fact-based research and assessment. Yes, I really think there are. We have some key things we have agreed to: *1) Findability *- thin registration data should be findable. That's a technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is much we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud Investigators (public and private) to find the data we need. Let's include some recommendations on these. *2) Access & Accuracy *- as we have already been discussing and which are key. One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and recommendations. They, together with the Community which must review and accept their solutions, must move quickly. But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer. Best, Kathy : > > Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week. > > *From:*Susan Kawaguchi > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111117/5d59b51d/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu Nov 17 17:18:17 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:18:17 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: draft report References: Message-ID: <4B6C9207-5F6F-424D-81A2-F4444DD1A59A@emilytaylor.eu> Hi all I promised to circulate another draft. Here it is. My edits start from page 17 and go to the end of the section on compliance. I am not quite happy with my new text on compliance and would welcome your input on that. I will continue to work through and send more edits. Alice - as the report doc now crashes every time I edit it please would you create a clean version which will be easier to read. All - this doesn't mean the edits ARE accepted but will help us to get a measure of how the doc is evolving. All- please let me have your feedback on edits to date. Especially flag ones you care about. To move us forward I will assume you are happy unless I hear from you. So speak up! Kind regards Emily Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Emily Taylor > Date: 15 November 2011 09:34:05 GMT > To: emily at emilytaylor.eu > Subject: draft report > > > > -- > Emily Taylor MA (Cantab) Solicitor MBA > Business Development Director > > > > Oxford Information Labs Limited > The Magdalen Centre > Oxford OX4 4GA > t: 01865 784294 > m: 07540 049322 > > Legally privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee(s) legally indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person) you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message, and notify us immediately. If you or your employer does not consent to Internet e-mail messages of this kind, please advise us immediately. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or endorsed by my firm or employer unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message. Please note that we do not accept any responsibility for viruses and we advise you to scan attachments. > Registered office: 37 Market Square, Witney, Oxfordshire OX28 6RE. Registered in England and Wales No. 4520925. VAT No. 799526263. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111117/13d2ff14/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111117/13d2ff14/attachment-0001.html From susank at fb.com Thu Nov 17 18:00:57 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: <4EC5207C.3060107@kathykleiman.com> References: <4EC5207C.3060107@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi Kathy, Please see my comments below. From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:56 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org; Susan Kawaguchi Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Dear Susan, I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with the searches was painful. Knowing that you struggle with this issue every day is even worse. However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries I don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as many questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net. If your assertion is true then we obviously have much bigger issues to deal with but I have followed the new gTld process from the very beginning, through all the versions and discussions of the AGB, had internal technical people evaluate the processes ICANN is advocating and have never heard a concern that Specification 4 would cause instability to the internet. To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both managed the database for .COM, .ORG and NET, and also registered domain names into it. In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4 registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more competition in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of ICANN's work to introduce competition into the domain name space), the registrars began banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then purchased by Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of the Whois information. It was an element of the competitive nature of the new domain name space to break up the information so one registry would not own and control it all. Completely understand the history but the need to create competition within the registrar space is no longer an issue. What we are facing now is a real need for the internet consumer to be able to easily look up a domain name registration. Whether that is converting the .com and .net registries to a Thick Whois model or ICANN creating a centralized WHOIS data base by collecting all the WHOIS information from each registrar I could advocate for either option. (I think Lutz is drafting a proposal for this option) If the team does not address this issue, in my mind, we have not done our job. It is crucial that the information for a domain name is available and accurate (privacy and proxy registrations aside as that is still viable WHOIS information). The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 100 million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be able to bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the registration business, as well as creating a series of additional business functions. It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we heard from the Registrars in the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore with us) Registrars remain very committed to this model, and for legitimate reasons. This is a redherring. There are many ways that they all collect competitive data and having one source that is accurate, available and searchable would benefit the internet consumers in general and not the smaller segment of just registrars or registries . Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous. When the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after competitive applications), among the first things it had to do was convert the ORG registrations to thick ones. There were only a few million registrations at the time and it was still an enormous and delicate task. It was a huge moment. I understand for a small company transitioning databases can be harrowing but Verisign is a well funded, large organization and well equipped to scope out the process before hand and put all the necessary safeguards in place. Truly 100 million records is not that significant any more when you look at the large internet companies and how many users or accounts that are created every day. Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration. These websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability of the Net would be one to study closely and carefully. The difficulties, not to mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous. The Thin Whois database could continue to exist to address any identified issues with security and stability of the internet. I am fine with the requirement to run both Thick and Thin. The ICANN centralized database proposal would essentially do that. Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our fact-based research and assessment. Yes, I really think there are. We have some key things we have agreed to: 1) Findability - thin registration data should be findable. That's a technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is much we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud Investigators (public and private) to find the data we need. Let's include some recommendations on these. I have never had an issue (to date) with finding Thin registration data. Verisign data is always available and probably always accurate. But it is not enough data. We need the THICK WHOIS data to protect the internet consumer. 2) Access & Accuracy - as we have already been discussing and which are key. One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and recommendations. They, together with the Community which must review and accept their solutions, must move quickly. Without specific recommendations and ( I agree with you) a specific time frame I do not have any faith in solving this issue. I do agree that we should not get to deep into the details but if we do not provide clear findings and actionable recommendations I fear we will be arguing about this for the next decade. But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer. Best, Kathy : Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week. From: Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB 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. _______________________________________________ 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/20111117/0e350d21/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu Nov 17 18:23:46 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:23:46 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: draft report In-Reply-To: <4B6C9207-5F6F-424D-81A2-F4444DD1A59A@emilytaylor.eu> References: <4B6C9207-5F6F-424D-81A2-F4444DD1A59A@emilytaylor.eu> Message-ID: Hi Michael kindly pointed out that I omitted the attachment. Hope this works, and look forward to your comments. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emily Taylor Date: 17 November 2011 17:18 Subject: Fwd: draft report To: Rt4-whois at icann.org Hi all I promised to circulate another draft. Here it is. My edits start from page 17 and go to the end of the section on compliance. I am not quite happy with my new text on compliance and would welcome your input on that. I will continue to work through and send more edits. Alice - as the report doc now crashes every time I edit it please would you create a clean version which will be easier to read. All - this doesn't mean the edits ARE accepted but will help us to get a measure of how the doc is evolving. All- please let me have your feedback on edits to date. Especially flag ones you care about. To move us forward I will assume you are happy unless I hear from you. So speak up! Kind regards Emily Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: *From:* Emily Taylor *Date:* 15 November 2011 09:34:05 GMT *To:* emily at emilytaylor.eu *Subject:* *draft report* -- *Emily Taylor* MA (Cantab) Solicitor MBA Business Development Director *Oxford Information Labs Limited* The Magdalen Centre Oxford OX4 4GA t: 01865 784294 m: 07540 049322 Legally privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee(s) legally indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person) you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message, and notify us immediately. If you or your employer does not consent to Internet e-mail messages of this kind, please advise us immediately. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or endorsed by my firm or employer unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message. Please note that we do not accept any responsibility for viruses and we advise you to scan attachments. Registered office: 37 Market Square, Witney, Oxfordshire OX28 6RE. Registered in England and Wales No. 4520925. VAT No. 799526263. -- * * 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/20111117/40ed25c5/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ET Comments Draft report - consolidated 5 - 8Nov2011-1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 2182742 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111117/40ed25c5/ETCommentsDraftreport-consolidated5-8Nov2011-1.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu Nov 17 18:26:19 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN In-Reply-To: <20111109112226.GA23343@belenus.iks-jena.de> References: <20111109112226.GA23343@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: Hi Susan, Kathy - I've been following your exchanges on Thick/Thin with interest. Susan mentioned Lutz's proposal on a central repository/portal run by ICANN. Here is his text for ease of reference. How about the two of you consider this outline and see whether this could meet your concerns/requirements (or if not, how could it be adapted to do so?) Kind regards Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lutz Donnerhacke Date: 9 November 2011 11:22 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN To: rt4-whois at icann.org 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. _______________________________________________ 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/20111117/900200be/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Thu Nov 17 18:31:25 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:31:25 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: References: <4EC5207C.3060107@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <2127576291-1321554685-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-795079571-@b11.c9.bise6.blackberry> I agree and support every point Susan has made below in response to Kathy's comments. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Susan Kawaguchi Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:00:57 To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Nov 17 18:46:02 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:46:02 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Message-ID: <20111117114602.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.c5ea7231fd.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111117/b5a09775/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Nov 17 20:32:48 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:32:48 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: References: <4EC5207C.3060107@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <3FEC6C82-AD5C-44C9-B1E0-4C3C188F4C16@paypal.com> +1 to Susan's comments. On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: Hi Kathy, Please see my comments below. From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:56 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org; Susan Kawaguchi Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Dear Susan, I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with the searches was painful. Knowing that you struggle with this issue every day is even worse. However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries I don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as many questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net. If your assertion is true then we obviously have much bigger issues to deal with but I have followed the new gTld process from the very beginning, through all the versions and discussions of the AGB, had internal technical people evaluate the processes ICANN is advocating and have never heard a concern that Specification 4 would cause instability to the internet. To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both managed the database for .COM, .ORG and NET, and also registered domain names into it. In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4 registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more competition in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of ICANN's work to introduce competition into the domain name space), the registrars began banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then purchased by Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of the Whois information. It was an element of the competitive nature of the new domain name space to break up the information so one registry would not own and control it all. Completely understand the history but the need to create competition within the registrar space is no longer an issue. What we are facing now is a real need for the internet consumer to be able to easily look up a domain name registration. Whether that is converting the .com and .net registries to a Thick Whois model or ICANN creating a centralized WHOIS data base by collecting all the WHOIS information from each registrar I could advocate for either option. (I think Lutz is drafting a proposal for this option) If the team does not address this issue, in my mind, we have not done our job. It is crucial that the information for a domain name is available and accurate (privacy and proxy registrations aside as that is still viable WHOIS information). The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 100 million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be able to bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the registration business, as well as creating a series of additional business functions. It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we heard from the Registrars in the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore with us) Registrars remain very committed to this model, and for legitimate reasons. This is a redherring. There are many ways that they all collect competitive data and having one source that is accurate, available and searchable would benefit the internet consumers in general and not the smaller segment of just registrars or registries . Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous. When the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after competitive applications), among the first things it had to do was convert the ORG registrations to thick ones. There were only a few million registrations at the time and it was still an enormous and delicate task. It was a huge moment. I understand for a small company transitioning databases can be harrowing but Verisign is a well funded, large organization and well equipped to scope out the process before hand and put all the necessary safeguards in place. Truly 100 million records is not that significant any more when you look at the large internet companies and how many users or accounts that are created every day. Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration. These websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability of the Net would be one to study closely and carefully. The difficulties, not to mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous. The Thin Whois database could continue to exist to address any identified issues with security and stability of the internet. I am fine with the requirement to run both Thick and Thin. The ICANN centralized database proposal would essentially do that. Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our fact-based research and assessment. Yes, I really think there are. We have some key things we have agreed to: 1) Findability - thin registration data should be findable. That's a technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is much we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud Investigators (public and private) to find the data we need. Let's include some recommendations on these. I have never had an issue (to date) with finding Thin registration data. Verisign data is always available and probably always accurate. But it is not enough data. We need the THICK WHOIS data to protect the internet consumer. 2) Access & Accuracy - as we have already been discussing and which are key. One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and recommendations. They, together with the Community which must review and accept their solutions, must move quickly. Without specific recommendations and ( I agree with you) a specific time frame I do not have any faith in solving this issue. I do agree that we should not get to deep into the details but if we do not provide clear findings and actionable recommendations I fear we will be arguing about this for the next decade. But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer. Best, Kathy : Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week. From: Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB 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. _______________________________________________ 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 bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Nov 17 20:38:20 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:38:20 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: <20111117114602.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.c5ea7231fd.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111117114602.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.c5ea7231fd.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <2AC688B1-F519-49EA-BB3E-351FADE0EA9A@paypal.com> James, I agree on the need for consensus re our recommendations. Could you point me to the language that says the only way to modify a Contracted Party contract is through the PDP. I haven't been able to locate that in the Bylaws or the GNSO PDP. I'm sure it's somewhere but I can't find the policy or process document that states this. Bill On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:46 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: Hi folks: Reading this thread (and reflecting on the work Susan and I are doing w.r.t. Proxy services), I am reminded of the limited nature of this Review Team in making its recommendations. Like my favorite game show "Jeopardy," it's not enough to have the correct answer. The format of the response (in our case, recommendation) is equally important. Bearing this in mind, I submit that recommendations should include the following elements: (1) Target (To whom are we directing the recommendation?) (2) Mechanism (By what means will the recommended action be implemented?) (3) Timeframe (What is the deadline for action? Note that in ICANN as well as the general world, if something is left open-ended, it will never be completed.) (4) Communication, Measurement & Follow-up (Was implementation complete? Did it work? What can the next WHOIS RT take away from it?) Note that if we are describing actions that would create new obligations for Contracted Parties (Registries & Registrars), we must reference the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP, Annex A in the ICANN Bylaws) as part of our recommendation, the first step of which is requesting an Issues Report. This is the only way to create new obligations for contracted parties. So, instead of: "Registrars should fix Problem X." A proper recommendation might look like: "No later than Jul 2012, the ICANN Board should request a PDP Issues Report to examine the potential actions Registrars can take to address Problem X." Also want to re-iterate that divided recommendations will most likely die on the table when presented to the Board. To ensure that each and every recommendation becomes reality, we must be unanimous in our presentation. If we aren't there yet with some of our recs, then we have to walk them back together until we can find middle ground (similar to what Susan and I are doing w.r.t. Proxy). Thanks-- J. Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB From: Susan Kawaguchi > Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 12:00 pm To: Kathy Kleiman >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Hi Kathy, Please see my comments below. From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:56 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org; Susan Kawaguchi Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Dear Susan, I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with the searches was painful. Knowing that you struggle with this issue every day is even worse. However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries I don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as many questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net. If your assertion is true then we obviously have much bigger issues to deal with but I have followed the new gTld process from the very beginning, through all the versions and discussions of the AGB, had internal technical people evaluate the processes ICANN is advocating and have never heard a concern that Specification 4 would cause instability to the internet. To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both managed the database for .COM, .ORG and NET, and also registered domain names into it. In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4 registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more competition in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of ICANN's work to introduce competition into the domain name space), the registrars began banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then purchased by Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of the Whois information. It was an element of the competitive nature of the new domain name space to break up the information so one registry would not own and control it all. Completely understand the history but the need to create competition within the registrar space is no longer an issue. What we are facing now is a real need for the internet consumer to be able to easily look up a domain name registration. Whether that is converting the .com and .net registries to a Thick Whois model or ICANN creating a centralized WHOIS data base by collecting all the WHOIS information from each registrar I could advocate for either option. (I think Lutz is drafting a proposal for this option) If the team does not address this issue, in my mind, we have not done our job. It is crucial that the information for a domain name is available and accurate (privacy and proxy registrations aside as that is still viable WHOIS information). The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 100 million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be able to bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the registration business, as well as creating a series of additional business functions. It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we heard from the Registrars in the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore with us) Registrars remain very committed to this model, and for legitimate reasons. This is a redherring. There are many ways that they all collect competitive data and having one source that is accurate, available and searchable would benefit the internet consumers in general and not the smaller segment of just registrars or registries . Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous. When the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after competitive applications), among the first things it had to do was convert the ORG registrations to thick ones. There were only a few million registrations at the time and it was still an enormous and delicate task. It was a huge moment. I understand for a small company transitioning databases can be harrowing but Verisign is a well funded, large organization and well equipped to scope out the process before hand and put all the necessary safeguards in place. Truly 100 million records is not that significant any more when you look at the large internet companies and how many users or accounts that are created every day. Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration. These websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability of the Net would be one to study closely and carefully. The difficulties, not to mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous. The Thin Whois database could continue to exist to address any identified issues with security and stability of the internet. I am fine with the requirement to run both Thick and Thin. The ICANN centralized database proposal would essentially do that. Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our fact-based research and assessment. Yes, I really think there are. We have some key things we have agreed to: 1) Findability - thin registration data should be findable. That's a technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is much we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud Investigators (public and private) to find the data we need. Let's include some recommendations on these. I have never had an issue (to date) with finding Thin registration data. Verisign data is always available and probably always accurate. But it is not enough data. We need the THICK WHOIS data to protect the internet consumer. 2) Access & Accuracy - as we have already been discussing and which are key. One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and recommendations. They, together with the Community which must review and accept their solutions, must move quickly. Without specific recommendations and ( I agree with you) a specific time frame I do not have any faith in solving this issue. I do agree that we should not get to deep into the details but if we do not provide clear findings and actionable recommendations I fear we will be arguing about this for the next decade. But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer. Best, Kathy : Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week. From: Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB 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. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From susank at fb.com Thu Nov 17 20:40:30 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:40:30 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: <2AC688B1-F519-49EA-BB3E-351FADE0EA9A@paypal.com> References: <20111117114602.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.c5ea7231fd.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <2AC688B1-F519-49EA-BB3E-351FADE0EA9A@paypal.com> Message-ID: I completely agree with you James and suggest all our recommendations in the report follow the elements you have described. "Bearing this in mind, I submit that recommendations should include the following elements: (1) Target (To whom are we directing the recommendation?) (2) Mechanism (By what means will the recommended action be implemented?) (3) Timeframe (What is the deadline for action? Note that in ICANN as well as the general world, if something is left open-ended, it will never be completed.) (4) Communication, Measurement & Follow-up (Was implementation complete? Did it work? What can the next WHOIS RT take away from it?)" -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:38 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB James, I agree on the need for consensus re our recommendations. Could you point me to the language that says the only way to modify a Contracted Party contract is through the PDP. I haven't been able to locate that in the Bylaws or the GNSO PDP. I'm sure it's somewhere but I can't find the policy or process document that states this. Bill On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:46 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: Hi folks: Reading this thread (and reflecting on the work Susan and I are doing w.r.t. Proxy services), I am reminded of the limited nature of this Review Team in making its recommendations. Like my favorite game show "Jeopardy," it's not enough to have the correct answer. The format of the response (in our case, recommendation) is equally important. Bearing this in mind, I submit that recommendations should include the following elements: (1) Target (To whom are we directing the recommendation?) (2) Mechanism (By what means will the recommended action be implemented?) (3) Timeframe (What is the deadline for action? Note that in ICANN as well as the general world, if something is left open-ended, it will never be completed.) (4) Communication, Measurement & Follow-up (Was implementation complete? Did it work? What can the next WHOIS RT take away from it?) Note that if we are describing actions that would create new obligations for Contracted Parties (Registries & Registrars), we must reference the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP, Annex A in the ICANN Bylaws) as part of our recommendation, the first step of which is requesting an Issues Report. This is the only way to create new obligations for contracted parties. So, instead of: "Registrars should fix Problem X." A proper recommendation might look like: "No later than Jul 2012, the ICANN Board should request a PDP Issues Report to examine the potential actions Registrars can take to address Problem X." Also want to re-iterate that divided recommendations will most likely die on the table when presented to the Board. To ensure that each and every recommendation becomes reality, we must be unanimous in our presentation. If we aren't there yet with some of our recs, then we have to walk them back together until we can find middle ground (similar to what Susan and I are doing w.r.t. Proxy). Thanks-- J. Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB From: Susan Kawaguchi > Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 12:00 pm To: Kathy Kleiman >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Hi Kathy, Please see my comments below. From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:56 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org; Susan Kawaguchi Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Dear Susan, I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with the searches was painful. Knowing that you struggle with this issue every day is even worse. However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries I don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as many questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net. If your assertion is true then we obviously have much bigger issues to deal with but I have followed the new gTld process from the very beginning, through all the versions and discussions of the AGB, had internal technical people evaluate the processes ICANN is advocating and have never heard a concern that Specification 4 would cause instability to the internet. To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both managed the database for .COM, .ORG and NET, and also registered domain names into it. In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4 registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more competition in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of ICANN's work to introduce competition into the domain name space), the registrars began banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then purchased by Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of the Whois information. It was an element of the competitive nature of the new domain name space to break up the information so one registry would not own and control it all. Completely understand the history but the need to create competition within the registrar space is no longer an issue. What we are facing now is a real need for the internet consumer to be able to easily look up a domain name registration. Whether that is converting the .com and .net registries to a Thick Whois model or ICANN creating a centralized WHOIS data base by collecting all the WHOIS information from each registrar I could advocate for either option. (I think Lutz is drafting a proposal for this option) If the team does not address this issue, in my mind, we have not done our job. It is crucial that the information for a domain name is available and accurate (privacy and proxy registrations aside as that is still viable WHOIS information). The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 100 million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be able to bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the registration business, as well as creating a series of additional business functions. It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we heard from the Registrars in the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore with us) Registrars remain very committed to this model, and for legitimate reasons. This is a redherring. There are many ways that they all collect competitive data and having one source that is accurate, available and searchable would benefit the internet consumers in general and not the smaller segment of just registrars or registries . Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous. When the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after competitive applications), among the first things it had to do was convert the ORG registrations to thick ones. There were only a few million registrations at the time and it was still an enormous and delicate task. It was a huge moment. I understand for a small company transitioning databases can be harrowing but Verisign is a well funded, large organization and well equipped to scope out the process before hand and put all the necessary safeguards in place. Truly 100 million records is not that significant any more when you look at the large internet companies and how many users or accounts that are created every day. Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration. These websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability of the Net would be one to study closely and carefully. The difficulties, not to mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous. The Thin Whois database could continue to exist to address any identified issues with security and stability of the internet. I am fine with the requirement to run both Thick and Thin. The ICANN centralized database proposal would essentially do that. Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our fact-based research and assessment. Yes, I really think there are. We have some key things we have agreed to: 1) Findability - thin registration data should be findable. That's a technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is much we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud Investigators (public and private) to find the data we need. Let's include some recommendations on these. I have never had an issue (to date) with finding Thin registration data. Verisign data is always available and probably always accurate. But it is not enough data. We need the THICK WHOIS data to protect the internet consumer. 2) Access & Accuracy - as we have already been discussing and which are key. One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and recommendations. They, together with the Community which must review and accept their solutions, must move quickly. Without specific recommendations and ( I agree with you) a specific time frame I do not have any faith in solving this issue. I do agree that we should not get to deep into the details but if we do not provide clear findings and actionable recommendations I fear we will be arguing about this for the next decade. But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer. Best, Kathy : Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week. From: Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB 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. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Nov 17 20:42:41 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:42:41 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Message-ID: <20111117134241.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.96ae01be06.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111117/62cbb707/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Nov 17 20:56:24 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:56:24 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: <20111117134241.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.96ae01be06.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111117134241.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.96ae01be06.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <30ADDC21-B654-4998-872A-955455853EC8@paypal-inc.com> James, Thanks for the quick reply. Sorry to be slow, but I still don't see where "contract modification" requires a PDP (and Issues Report, etc.). The section you referenced describes how new specifications and policies are developed, not how contracts are amended. As best I can tell, it's up to the ICANN Board to make the determination on contract language. Bill On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:42 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: Bill: This is described in Section 4 of the RAA. Here's a quick link: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#4 J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB From: "Smith, Bill" > Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:38 pm To: "James M. Bladel" > Cc: Susan Kawaguchi >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" > James, I agree on the need for consensus re our recommendations. Could you point me to the language that says the only way to modify a Contracted Party contract is through the PDP. I haven't been able to locate that in the Bylaws or the GNSO PDP. I'm sure it's somewhere but I can't find the policy or process document that states this. Bill On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:46 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: Hi folks: Reading this thread (and reflecting on the work Susan and I are doing w.r.t. Proxy services), I am reminded of the limited nature of this Review Team in making its recommendations. Like my favorite game show "Jeopardy," it's not enough to have the correct answer. The format of the response (in our case, recommendation) is equally important. Bearing this in mind, I submit that recommendations should include the following elements: (1) Target (To whom are we directing the recommendation?) (2) Mechanism (By what means will the recommended action be implemented?) (3) Timeframe (What is the deadline for action? Note that in ICANN as well as the general world, if something is left open-ended, it will never be completed.) (4) Communication, Measurement & Follow-up (Was implementation complete? Did it work? What can the next WHOIS RT take away from it?) Note that if we are describing actions that would create new obligations for Contracted Parties (Registries & Registrars), we must reference the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP, Annex A in the ICANN Bylaws) as part of our recommendation, the first step of which is requesting an Issues Report. This is the only way to create new obligations for contracted parties. So, instead of: "Registrars should fix Problem X." A proper recommendation might look like: "No later than Jul 2012, the ICANN Board should request a PDP Issues Report to examine the potential actions Registrars can take to address Problem X." Also want to re-iterate that divided recommendations will most likely die on the table when presented to the Board. To ensure that each and every recommendation becomes reality, we must be unanimous in our presentation. If we aren't there yet with some of our recs, then we have to walk them back together until we can find middle ground (similar to what Susan and I are doing w.r.t. Proxy). Thanks-- J. Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB From: Susan Kawaguchi >>> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 12:00 pm To: Kathy Kleiman >>>, "rt4-whois at icann.org>" >>> Hi Kathy, Please see my comments below. From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:56 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org>; Susan Kawaguchi Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Dear Susan, I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with the searches was painful. Knowing that you struggle with this issue every day is even worse. However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries I don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as many questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net. If your assertion is true then we obviously have much bigger issues to deal with but I have followed the new gTld process from the very beginning, through all the versions and discussions of the AGB, had internal technical people evaluate the processes ICANN is advocating and have never heard a concern that Specification 4 would cause instability to the internet. To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both managed the database for .COM, .ORG and NET, and also registered domain names into it. In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4 registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more competition in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of ICANN's work to introduce competition into the domain name space), the registrars began banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then purchased by Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of the Whois information. It was an element of the competitive nature of the new domain name space to break up the information so one registry would not own and control it all. Completely understand the history but the need to create competition within the registrar space is no longer an issue. What we are facing now is a real need for the internet consumer to be able to easily look up a domain name registration. Whether that is converting the .com and .net registries to a Thick Whois model or ICANN creating a centralized WHOIS data base by collecting all the WHOIS information from each registrar I could advocate for either option. (I think Lutz is drafting a proposal for this option) If the team does not address this issue, in my mind, we have not done our job. It is crucial that the information for a domain name is available and accurate (privacy and proxy registrations aside as that is still viable WHOIS information). The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 100 million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be able to bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the registration business, as well as creating a series of additional business functions. It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we heard from the Registrars in the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore with us) Registrars remain very committed to this model, and for legitimate reasons. This is a redherring. There are many ways that they all collect competitive data and having one source that is accurate, available and searchable would benefit the internet consumers in general and not the smaller segment of just registrars or registries . Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous. When the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after competitive applications), among the first things it had to do was convert the ORG registrations to thick ones. There were only a few million registrations at the time and it was still an enormous and delicate task. It was a huge moment. I understand for a small company transitioning databases can be harrowing but Verisign is a well funded, large organization and well equipped to scope out the process before hand and put all the necessary safeguards in place. Truly 100 million records is not that significant any more when you look at the large internet companies and how many users or accounts that are created every day. Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration. These websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability of the Net would be one to study closely and carefully. The difficulties, not to mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous. The Thin Whois database could continue to exist to address any identified issues with security and stability of the internet. I am fine with the requirement to run both Thick and Thin. The ICANN centralized database proposal would essentially do that. Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our fact-based research and assessment. Yes, I really think there are. We have some key things we have agreed to: 1) Findability - thin registration data should be findable. That's a technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is much we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud Investigators (public and private) to find the data we need. Let's include some recommendations on these. I have never had an issue (to date) with finding Thin registration data. Verisign data is always available and probably always accurate. But it is not enough data. We need the THICK WHOIS data to protect the internet consumer. 2) Access & Accuracy - as we have already been discussing and which are key. One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and recommendations. They, together with the Community which must review and accept their solutions, must move quickly. Without specific recommendations and ( I agree with you) a specific time frame I do not have any faith in solving this issue. I do agree that we should not get to deep into the details but if we do not provide clear findings and actionable recommendations I fear we will be arguing about this for the next decade. But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer. Best, Kathy : Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week. From: Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org> Subject: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB 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. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Nov 17 21:48:32 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:48:32 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Message-ID: <20111117144832.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f5cca910e2.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111117/14350777/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Fri Nov 18 09:57:04 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:57:04 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: CENTR WHOIS survey information? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Patrick and Peter Just following up on my e-mail of 14 November (below). Please would you let me know when the WHOIS Review Team can expect to receive the anonymised data which you promised relating to WHOIS practices within the CENTR community. This would be very helpful for our draft Report, which is due to be published at the end of this month, as we are keen to highlight examples of good practice outside of the gTLD environment, which might help the gTLD community develop responses for WHOIS which successfully balance the legitimate, competing needs of the various stakeholders. I understand that Peter has expressed concern to one of my clients that I might misappropriate CENTR data gained on behalf of that client (in connection to an unrelated project) for the purposes of the WHOIS Review Team. I am bemused at this apparent assumption, and would like to understand what action on my part would have given rise to it. In any event, please be assured that I would never do such a thing, which is why I have made the request for anonymised data repeatedly through the appropriate channels. Kind regards Emily Taylor Chair WHOIS Review Team ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emily Taylor Date: 14 November 2011 10:38 Subject: CENTR WHOIS survey information? To: Patrick Myles Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Hi Patrick I hope you are well. You may recall that a couple of months ago, we were in correspondence about whether CENTR could provide any anonymised data with regard to WHOIS policy and implementation to the ICANN WHOIS Review Team, which I chair. You indicated that you would be prepared to share some information with us. We are aiming to finalise our draft report by the end of this month, and therefore I would greatly appreciate if you could indicate when you will be able to share the information with us. Kind regards Emily Taylor Chair, WHOIS Review Team -- * * 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/20111118/fad885c1/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri Nov 18 12:41:15 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 04:41:15 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Clean & Consolidated - Draft report - V1 Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's request, please find attached a clean and consolidated V1 of the draft report. Note that this document may also be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- 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/20111118/162569fc/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft report clean - 18 Nov.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 1316618 bytes Desc: Draft report clean - 18 Nov.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111118/162569fc/Draftreportclean-18Nov.docx From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri Nov 18 14:45:15 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:45:15 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - ConfCall 23 November Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, As you know, your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 23 November at 20:00 UTC. Please find enclosed the agenda: 1. Roll-call & Apologies 2. Preliminary reports to adopt: Dakar meeting & 9 November conference call 3. Review IDN recommendations (Michael & Sarmad) 4. Sign-off the letter to compliance and discuss sending modalities 5. Review Emily's suggestions for cuts 6. Review and discuss James & Susan's proposals on Proxies 7. Discuss the thread on Thick/Thin or repository of WHOIS 8. Discuss any comments on the Policy section 9. Agree/discuss text on the consumer research (Lynn, Seth &Susan) 10. A.O.B It may also be found on the public wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+24+-+23+November+2011 Thanks, Very best regards Alice -- 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/20111118/8ceca8f5/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri Nov 18 14:48:07 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:48:07 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary report for your approval - 9 Nov Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the preliminary report of your teleconference held on 9 November. Kindly note that this will be discussed during your upcoming conference call. In the meantime, please feel free to email editing suggestions/requirements. Thanks, Very best regards Alice -- 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/20111118/be19b7bd/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Prel Report - 9 Nov - for your approval.doc Type: application/x-msword Size: 43008 bytes Desc: Prel Report - 9 Nov - for your approval.doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111118/be19b7bd/PrelReport-9Nov-foryourapproval.doc From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri Nov 18 15:02:04 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:02:04 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary report for your approval - Dakar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the preliminary report of the Dakar meeting Kindly note that this will be discussed during your upcoming conference call. In the meantime, please feel free to email editing suggestions/requirements. Thanks, Very best regards Alice -- 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/20111118/ffc7e31e/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Prel Rep - Dakar - WHOIS RT - for your approval.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 30984 bytes Desc: Prel Rep - Dakar - WHOIS RT - for your approval.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111118/ffc7e31e/PrelRep-Dakar-WHOISRT-foryourapproval.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Sun Nov 20 14:37:52 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:37:52 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] ccTLDs - consolidation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Alice Thanks for pulling this together. We are starting to achieve a useful repository of ccTLD information. >From a reader's perspective, I believe it would be more useful to provide the information in the following format: 1. General observations 2. Implementation by specific ccTLDs, eg .ca, Canada .dk, Denmark .ie, Ireland .nl, Netherlands .uk, United Kingdom etc I don't think that we need to include some of the more unspecific comments (eg I think there may be a study somewhere on something to do with this. You'll have to look for it). We're looking for hard information about what ccTLDs do. As you may be aware, I have also been promised anonymised data from CENTR on this. Still waiting ;-) Kind regards Emily You can then identify the source of comments in the text or by footnotes. On 16 November 2011 16:42, Alice Jansen wrote: > Dear Review Team Members, > > Following up on Emily's request, please find attached a v2 of Kim's > document. > > Note that this version also includes the Nominet report as well as public > comments. > This document is available on your private wiki at: > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/ccTLDs > > On your private wiki your will also find a compilation of all the feedback > you received in Singapore: > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Singapore+feedback > > Thanks, > > Best regards > > Alice > -- > *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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111120/2114c767/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Sun Nov 20 14:43:39 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:43:39 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope__Defintiions_-_a_newly_expanded_chapter (2)(smr rev) (Repaired) In-Reply-To: References: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C68262CF9@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: Hi - Just came across this in my drafts folder dated 8 November. Not sure if I sent it through. Emily ----------- Hi all Following up on Seth's editing job, and other comments, I have reviewed the text, and made some edits, which are tracked in the attached. I think this revised chapter is good, and should replace the one in the consolidated draft report. Best, Emily On 20 October 2011 14:08, Alice Jansen wrote: > Many thanks, Sharon, for your prompt response. > I have edited the report accordingly. > The latest version is now available on the wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report > > Very best > > Alice > > From: "LEMON, Sharon" > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:14:54 -0700 > To: Alice Jansen , Kathy Kleiman < > kathy at kathykleiman.com> > Cc: 'Emily Taylor' , Sharon Lemon < > sharonchallis at aol.com> > Subject: RE: Scope__Defintiions_-_a_newly_expanded_chapter (2)(smr rev) > (Repaired) > > *NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED * > Alice, > > Thank you, that is very thoughtful of you. I have no problems with Seth's > changes to the Law Enforcement defintion . Emily worked on the other > definitions, so will have a view on Seth's work on those. > > Sharon > > > > Sharon LEMON OBE > Deputy Director > Cyber and Forensics > Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) > 07768 290902 > 0207 855 2800 > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Alice Jansen [mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org] > > *Sent:* 20 October 2011 13:06 > *To:* Kathy Kleiman > *Cc:* 'Emily Taylor'; LEMON, Sharon; Sharon Lemon > *Subject:* Re: Scope__Defintiions_-_a_newly_expanded_chapter (2)(smr rev) > (Repaired) > > Hello there, > > I have posted Seth's edits on the wiki in the chapter section > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Scope+Chapter. > Seth seems to be proposing significant changes to Sharon's definition > section. Hence I would rather have Sharon's greenlight/feedback before > proceeding with the editing of the master document. > Sharon, what are your views on Seth's amendments? > > Thanks for your understanding, > > Best > > Alice > > From: Kathy Kleiman > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:32:42 -0700 > To: Seth M Reiss > Cc: 'Emily Taylor' , "'LEMON, Sharon'" < > sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>, Sharon Lemon , > Alice Jansen > Subject: Re: Scope__Defintiions_-_a_newly_expanded_chapter (2)(smr rev) > (Repaired) > > Thanks Seth and safe travels! You worry about arriving safely, and > we'll worry about pulling all your good work into the report. > Hope it's a good trip and thanks, > Kathy > : > > OK, I am about to jump on my plane. I have about 36 hours of planes and > airports ahead of me ? I wonder if this might be an ICANN record?**** > > **** > > I think I addressed Emily?s concerns, which I thought were good ones. I > am not sure how to integrate this or post it to the private WIKI so if it?s > appropriate to post, perhaps one of you could do that for me.**** > > **** > > See you in Dakar.**** > > **** > > *Seth M. Reiss* > > Seth M. Reiss, AAL, ALLLC**** > > *dba** **Le**x**-IP.com*** > > Intellectual Property & Internet Law**** > > 3770 Lurline Drive | Honolulu, HI 96816** > > (: 808.521.7080 | 7: 808.675.5805 | *: *seth.reiss at lex-ip.com* | website: > www.lex-ip.com**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu ] > *Sent:* Sunday, October 16, 2011 9:58 PM > *To:* Seth M Reiss > *Cc:* LEMON, Sharon; sharonchallis at aol.com; Kathy Kleiman > *Subject:* Re: Scope__Defintiions_-_a_newly_expanded_chapter (2)(smr rev) > (Repaired)**** > > **** > > Hi all > > Thanks Seth - I think this section is taking shape. > > Two general points: > > 1. We need somewhere a link (to an annex? or something) which explains > that we consulted on the definitions, got feedback, and took it into > account - these are the product of our own discussions and community input. > > 2. Acknowledge SSAC as the source of those final definitions. Either > delete the acronyms, or else say that we found the concepts useful but the > terms not so much - because they are so similar to one another. So, in the > report we talk about the protocol, the service and the whois data. I had > an offiline with Jim Galvin about this, and he fully understood that the > definition labels (if I can put it like that) were not that helpful. It > doesn't detract from the fact that the descriptions are good. > > Kind regards > > Emily > > > **** > > On 17 October 2011 01:55, Seth M Reiss wrote:**** > > OK, here I go trying to step on toes. Let me know if it hurts J. **** > > **** > > Instead of reworking the definitions in Sharon?s original section, I > worked on Kathy?s rework of Sharon?s section and added in the definitions > that I think Wilfried may have developed from the SSAC report.**** > > **** > > I noted a discrepancy in the definition of consumer from Sharon?s to > Kathy?s draft. Not sure if I am missing something here.**** > > **** > > Hope this helps.**** > > **** > > *Seth M. Reiss***** > > Seth M. Reiss, AAL, ALLLC**** > > *dba** **Le**x**-IP.com***** > > Intellectual Property & Internet Law**** > > 3770 Lurline Drive | Honolulu, HI 96816**** > > (: 808.521.7080 | 7: 808.675.5805 | *: *seth.reiss at lex-ip.com* | website: > www.lex-ip.com**** > > **** > > **** > > > > > -- > > > **** > > * > * > > 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.**** > > **** > > > > -- > > > > > This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government > Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In > case of problems, please call your organisation?s IT Helpdesk. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or > recorded for legal purposes. > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. > Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the > subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and > without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the > Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files > transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to > whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please > contact the sender as soon as possible. > > This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from > disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be > subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be > unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for > disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of > contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning > 0870 268 8677. > > > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. > Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the > subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and > without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the > Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files > transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to > whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please > contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government > Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide > in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On > leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or > recorded for legal purposes. > -- * * 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/20111120/7814dfac/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ET Comments - Definitions.doc Type: application/msword Size: 56832 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111120/7814dfac/ETComments-Definitions.doc