From jbladel at godaddy.com Mon Nov 21 05:19:59 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:19:59 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - ConfCall 23 November Message-ID: <20111120221959.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.d0a0827927.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111120/76be30ad/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Mon Nov 21 06:01:22 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - ConfCall 23 November In-Reply-To: <20111120221959.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.d0a0827927.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111120221959.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.d0a0827927.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Thanks James I realise that this call falls very close to the US Thanksgiving holiday. I propose that we go ahead with the call as we are now so close to our deadline, and wish our US Team members a Happy Thanksgiving. If you could circulate any papers in advance of the meeting, that would be great. Kind regards Emily On 21 November 2011 05:19, James M. Bladel wrote: > Alice & Team: > > Apologies, but I will be unable to make this call, and I suspect this is > also the case with some other US members of RT4. > > With regard to Agenda Item #6, I can report that Susan and I met last week > and discussed proxy services extensively, so we should have something for > the group to review by the next call. > > Thank you, > > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - ConfCall 23 November > From: Alice Jansen > Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 8:45 am > To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- * * 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/20111121/286b61f7/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Nov 21 14:48:08 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:48:08 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] ccTLDs - consolidation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Team, I have edited the paper on ccTLDs based on Emily's feedback. You will find it attached. Please let me know whether this format is more convenient. Note that I have hardly deleted/edited material. Hence I would be very grateful if you could review the document and trim it whenever necessary? The document is also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/ccTLDs Many thanks in advance. 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 From: Emily Taylor > Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 06:37:52 -0800 To: Alice Jansen > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ccTLDs - consolidation 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 -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111121/7067227f/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Input on ccTLDs - 21 Nov - v1 -.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 170685 bytes Desc: Input on ccTLDs - 21 Nov - v1 -.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111121/7067227f/InputonccTLDs-21Nov-v1-.docx From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Nov 21 19:13:38 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:13:38 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft report - 21 Nov Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the most recent version of the draft report ? 21 November ? which reflects Emily's comments on the Definitions section and includes amendments to the introduction and scope of work sections. This document is also available 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/20111121/c15fdf65/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft report clean - 21 Nov - v1.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 1303391 bytes Desc: Draft report clean - 21 Nov - v1.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111121/c15fdf65/Draftreportclean-21Nov-v1.docx From denise.michel at icann.org Mon Nov 21 19:18:42 2011 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:18:42 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: <20111117144832.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f5cca910e2.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111117144832.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f5cca910e2.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: James - I'd be happy to contribute to this discussion. All - There are multiple ways to change the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the various Registry agreements (see current list at < http://www.icann.org/en/registries/agreements.htm>). The RAA can be changed through the GNSO's policy development process (PDP) and through contract-based options. (See attached Policy Staff paper I sent a few weeks ago that details these processes; different issues and processes yield different results -- e.g. immediate mandatory change, change upon contract renewal, etc.). RAA changes are posted for public comment and approved by the Board. The existing gTLD Registries are governed by the individual Registry or Sponsorship Agreements (linked above). Staff works with the individual gTLD Registry to review and change the provisions of their Registry or Sponsorship Agreement. Changes are posted for public comment and ultimately approved by the Board. There also is precedent for a PDP aimed at changes to existing registry contracts (see < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/>), but this is the exception. In addition, a Registry may file an RSEP application to add a new service (and change its contract) (information on this is posted at < http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/>). Finally, as you've discussed, the Applicant Guidebook contains obligations that will be incorporated in new gTLD registry agreements. Please let me know if you need more information. Regards, Denise On Thursday, November 17, 2011, James M. Bladel wrote: > I don't think I'm covering this topic adequately. Denise, perhaps you could weigh in on Bill's questions? > > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB > From: "Smith, Bill" > Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:56 pm > To: "James M. Bladel" > Cc: Susan Kawaguchi , "rt4-whois at icann.org" > > > 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" < http://bill.smith at paypal-inc.com/>> > 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>" >< http://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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111121/dd5ac825/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Final RAA Discussion Paper 13-10-11v3 (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1661831 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111121/dd5ac825/FinalRAADiscussionPaper13-10-11v31.pdf From susank at fb.com Mon Nov 21 20:44:11 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:44:11 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] UserInsight study summary final 11211.docx Message-ID: Hello Emily, Lynn, Seth and I have finalized the summary of the Userinsight study. Please see the attached document. Susan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111121/25e7e597/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UserInsight study summary final 11211.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 20995 bytes Desc: UserInsight study summary final 11211.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111121/25e7e597/UserInsightstudysummaryfinal11211.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Tue Nov 22 10:14:14 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:14:14 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] UserInsight study summary final 11211.docx In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Susan Thanks to you, Lynn and Seth for great work here. I've put in some comments. They probably look worse than they are, partly because this draft is an at early stage, and also because this is such an important section of the report. Let me know what you think of my suggestions, and I look forward to further polishing this section as a team. Kind regards Emily On 21 November 2011 20:44, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > Hello Emily, **** > > ** ** > > Lynn, Seth and I have finalized the summary of the Userinsight study. > Please see the attached document. **** > > ** ** > > Susan **** > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111122/29b32b37/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UserInsight study summary final 11211.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 22618 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/29b32b37/UserInsightstudysummaryfinal11211.docx From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Tue Nov 22 15:30:57 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:30:57 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: References: <20111117144832.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f5cca910e2.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <45A5CD80-379C-4DD1-9DFC-CB518C9380DE@paypal.com> Denise, Thanks for the information on the various agreements and how ICANN, the .org, recommends changes to those agreements. I think these processes are useful and consistent with the multi-stakeholder model, but I have yet to see anything in the Bylaws or any policy document that requires contract changes through a PDP or any other "community process". Perhaps I am making to fine a point of this, but I consider it an important one, and that is that only the Board has the authority to enter into contracts. It may delegate that authority, typically for the purposes of negotiation and expedited execution. Further, in the case of ICANN, the corporation, it has a responsibility to enter into contracts that are in the public interest (writ large). Bill On Nov 21, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Denise Michel wrote: James - I'd be happy to contribute to this discussion. All - There are multiple ways to change the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the various Registry agreements (see current list at ). The RAA can be changed through the GNSO's policy development process (PDP) and through contract-based options. (See attached Policy Staff paper I sent a few weeks ago that details these processes; different issues and processes yield different results -- e.g. immediate mandatory change, change upon contract renewal, etc.). RAA changes are posted for public comment and approved by the Board. The existing gTLD Registries are governed by the individual Registry or Sponsorship Agreements (linked above). Staff works with the individual gTLD Registry to review and change the provisions of their Registry or Sponsorship Agreement. Changes are posted for public comment and ultimately approved by the Board. There also is precedent for a PDP aimed at changes to existing registry contracts (see ), but this is the exception. In addition, a Registry may file an RSEP application to add a new service (and change its contract) (information on this is posted at ). Finally, as you've discussed, the Applicant Guidebook contains obligations that will be incorporated in new gTLD registry agreements. Please let me know if you need more information. Regards, Denise On Thursday, November 17, 2011, James M. Bladel > wrote: > I don't think I'm covering this topic adequately. Denise, perhaps you could weigh in on Bill's questions? > > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB > From: "Smith, Bill" > > Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:56 pm > To: "James M. Bladel" > > Cc: Susan Kawaguchi >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Nov 22 16:20:19 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment Period RE: Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois In-Reply-To: <5F5861CD-EA1C-487E-BA6E-6753F8815960@ipjustice.org> References: <5F5861CD-EA1C-487E-BA6E-6753F8815960@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4ECBCBC3.9060506@kathykleiman.com> And as if to read our minds, the GNSO is working on the Thick Whois/Thin Whois problems. A very good step for them to take. FYI, Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment Period RE: Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:47:16 -0800 From: Robin Gross Reply-To: Robin Gross To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Begin forwarded message: > *From: *Glen de Saint G?ry > > *Date: *November 21, 2011 3:07:29 PM PST > *To: *liaison6c > > *Subject: **[liaison6c] Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois* > > Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois Comment Period Deadlines^ > > Important Information LinksPublic Comment Box > > *Open Date:*21 November 2011To Submit Your Comments (Forum) > > *Close Date:*30 December 2011*Time (UTC):*23:59 > View Comments Submitted > > *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* > > ICANN Staff is seeking comments on itsPreliminary Issue Report on > 'Thick' Whois > [PDF, > 635 KB]. Specifically, this Report addresses not only a possible > requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of > the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP), but also considers any > other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur > outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding > whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would > be desirable or not. > > The Preliminary Issue Report informs the GNSO Council concerning the > possible requirement of 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs in > advance of the Council's vote on whether to commence a Policy > Development Process (PDP) on this issue. > > This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the > ICANN community to provide its views on this topic and on whether a > Policy Development Process should be initiated to consider the > requirement of 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs. This Preliminary > Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted > through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the > GNSO Council for its consideration.*Section II: Background* > > In the context of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A as > well as the Part B Working Group, the issue of 'thick' Whois was > discussed and it was noted that: ?The benefit would be that in a thick > registry one could develop a secure method for a gaining registrar to > gain access to the registrant contact information. Currently there is > no standard means for the secure exchange of registrant details in a > thin registry. In this scenario, disputes between the registrant and > admin contact could be reduced, as the registrant would become the > ultimate approver of a transfer?. At the same time it was noted that > even though requiring 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs would have > benefits in the context of transfers, it would be important to explore > 'any other potential positive or negative effects that are likely to > occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account'. As a > result, the IRTP Part B Working Group recommended requesting: ?an > Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent > gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development > Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' > WHOIS or all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also > consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to > occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when > deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent > gTLDs would be desirable or not?. This recommendation that was adopted > by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 September 2011 > (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/). > > *Section III: Document and Resource Links* > > Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois > [PDF, > 635 KB] > > *Section IV: Additional Information*None*Staff Contact:*Marika > Konings*Email:*policy-staff at icann.org > > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/e4088f75/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Nov 22 16:30:58 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:30:58 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, A basic compilation of agreed upon recommendations is attached for your convenience. The second attachment is the same document lightly edited by Emily to eliminate redundancies. These documents may be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+Recommendations Please review both and email any feedback you may have. 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/20111122/83fd28a5/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Current WRT Recommendations - v1 - Nov 21.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61440 bytes Desc: Current WRT Recommendations - v1 - Nov 21.doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/83fd28a5/CurrentWRTRecommendations-v1-Nov21.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Current WRT Recommendations - v2 (ET comments) - Nov 21[2].doc Type: application/x-msword Size: 72704 bytes Desc: Current WRT Recommendations - v2 (ET comments) - Nov 21[2].doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/83fd28a5/CurrentWRTRecommendations-v2ETcomments-Nov212.doc From jbladel at godaddy.com Tue Nov 22 16:34:08 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:34:08 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment Period RE: Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois Message-ID: <20111122093408.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.89fd48c97c.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/3b42b52c/attachment.html From sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk Tue Nov 22 16:38:22 2011 From: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk (Sarmad Hussain) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:38:22 +0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: WHOIS RT: IDN thread Message-ID: <4ecbd005.112d650a.36b0.ffff9713@mx.google.com> Dear All, Here is an interim version of the IDN section with three recommendations at the end. This is for the discussion on the call tomorrow. Regards, Sarmad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/9f623266/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internationalization of Domain Name Registration Data 0.3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24402 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/9f623266/InternationalizationofDomainNameRegistrationData0.3.docx From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Tue Nov 22 16:50:37 2011 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:50:37 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: <45A5CD80-379C-4DD1-9DFC-CB518C9380DE@paypal.com> References: <20111117144832.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f5cca910e2.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <45A5CD80-379C-4DD1-9DFC-CB518C9380DE@paypal.com> Message-ID: <015201cca936$dceb7b90$96c272b0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> I am wondering if the distinction being made and perhaps missed here is that changes to the RAA can be made mid-stream through the PDP but otherwise, a change can only be implemented when the term of a given RAA runs out and is up for renewal. In other words, ICANN cannot force an amendment on a registrar until that registrar's RAA is up for renewal, but a registrar's obligations under the contract can be amended through a PDP because the current RAA states that it may. -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:31 AM To: denise.michel at icann.org Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Denise, Thanks for the information on the various agreements and how ICANN, the .org, recommends changes to those agreements. I think these processes are useful and consistent with the multi-stakeholder model, but I have yet to see anything in the Bylaws or any policy document that requires contract changes through a PDP or any other "community process". Perhaps I am making to fine a point of this, but I consider it an important one, and that is that only the Board has the authority to enter into contracts. It may delegate that authority, typically for the purposes of negotiation and expedited execution. Further, in the case of ICANN, the corporation, it has a responsibility to enter into contracts that are in the public interest (writ large). Bill On Nov 21, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Denise Michel wrote: James - I'd be happy to contribute to this discussion. All - There are multiple ways to change the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the various Registry agreements (see current list at ). The RAA can be changed through the GNSO's policy development process (PDP) and through contract-based options. (See attached Policy Staff paper I sent a few weeks ago that details these processes; different issues and processes yield different results -- e.g. immediate mandatory change, change upon contract renewal, etc.). RAA changes are posted for public comment and approved by the Board. The existing gTLD Registries are governed by the individual Registry or Sponsorship Agreements (linked above). Staff works with the individual gTLD Registry to review and change the provisions of their Registry or Sponsorship Agreement. Changes are posted for public comment and ultimately approved by the Board. There also is precedent for a PDP aimed at changes to existing registry contracts (see ), but this is the exception. In addition, a Registry may file an RSEP application to add a new service (and change its contract) (information on this is posted at ). Finally, as you've discussed, the Applicant Guidebook contains obligations that will be incorporated in new gTLD registry agreements. Please let me know if you need more information. Regards, Denise On Thursday, November 17, 2011, James M. Bladel > wrote: > I don't think I'm covering this topic adequately. Denise, perhaps you could weigh in on Bill's questions? > > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB > From: "Smith, Bill" > > Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:56 pm > To: "James M. Bladel" > > Cc: Susan Kawaguchi >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" > > > > 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 >>>>>&g t; > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Nov 22 17:14:40 2011 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:14:40 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: <015201cca936$dceb7b90$96c272b0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> References: <20111117144832.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f5cca910e2.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <45A5CD80-379C-4DD1-9DFC-CB518C9380DE@paypal.com> <015201cca936$dceb7b90$96c272b0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Message-ID: <263C2C18-9013-4267-80A1-B24694DBF9FC@paypal-inc.com> Seth, I agree with your analysis that certain "changes" can be made through a PDP while a given contract is in force. As I recall, those changes are limited and can be contested by the contracted parties. I don't think there is any way ICANN can "force" an amendment or change on a contracted party at any time, even through a PDP. The contracted party is under no obligation to sign a contract it finds unacceptable and similarly is free to terminate the agreement if it finds PDP amendments unacceptable. I think it is important that we recognize the rights, responsibilities, and authority of the various parties engaged at ICANN, and that the Board in fact has the authority to establish contract terms. No other party has that authority though we all share a responsibility for recommending modifications that are in the public interest. Bill On Nov 22, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Seth M Reiss wrote: > I am wondering if the distinction being made and perhaps missed here is that > changes to the RAA can be made mid-stream through the PDP but otherwise, a > change can only be implemented when the term of a given RAA runs out and is > up for renewal. In other words, ICANN cannot force an amendment on a > registrar until that registrar's RAA is up for renewal, but a registrar's > obligations under the contract can be amended through a PDP because the > current RAA states that it may. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, Bill > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:31 AM > To: denise.michel at icann.org > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB > > Denise, > > Thanks for the information on the various agreements and how ICANN, the > .org, recommends changes to those agreements. I think these processes are > useful and consistent with the multi-stakeholder model, but I have yet to > see anything in the Bylaws or any policy document that requires contract > changes through a PDP or any other "community process". > > Perhaps I am making to fine a point of this, but I consider it an important > one, and that is that only the Board has the authority to enter into > contracts. It may delegate that authority, typically for the purposes of > negotiation and expedited execution. Further, in the case of ICANN, the > corporation, it has a responsibility to enter into contracts that are in the > public interest (writ large). > > Bill > > On Nov 21, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Denise Michel wrote: > > James - I'd be happy to contribute to this discussion. > > All - > > There are multiple ways to change the Registrar Accreditation Agreement > (RAA) and the various Registry agreements (see current list at > ). > > The RAA can be changed through the GNSO's policy development process (PDP) > and through contract-based options. (See attached Policy Staff paper I sent > a few weeks ago that details these processes; different issues and processes > yield different results -- e.g. immediate mandatory change, change upon > contract renewal, etc.). RAA changes are posted for public comment and > approved by the Board. > > The existing gTLD Registries are governed by the individual Registry or > Sponsorship Agreements (linked above). Staff works with the individual gTLD > Registry to review and change the provisions of their Registry or > Sponsorship Agreement. Changes are posted for public comment and ultimately > approved by the Board. There also is precedent for a PDP aimed at changes > to existing registry contracts (see > ), but this is the exception. > In addition, a Registry may file an RSEP application to add a new service > (and change its contract) (information on this is posted at > ). Finally, as you've discussed, > the Applicant Guidebook contains obligations that will be incorporated in > new gTLD registry agreements. > > Please let me know if you need more information. > > Regards, > Denise > > On Thursday, November 17, 2011, James M. Bladel > > wrote: >> I don't think I'm covering this topic adequately. Denise, perhaps you > could weigh in on Bill's questions? >> >> J. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB >> From: "Smith, Bill" > > >> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:56 pm >> To: "James M. Bladel" > >> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi >, > "rt4-whois at icann.org" >> > >> >> 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" > > ith at paypal-inc.com/>> >> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:38 pm >> To: "James M. Bladel" > > >> >> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi > > com>>>, > "rt4-whois at icann.org mailto: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 > > com>>>>>&g > t; >> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 12:00 pm >> To: Kathy Kleiman > > eiman.com>> lto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>>>, >> > "rt4-whois at icann.org mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>> nn.org>>>" > > >> cann.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 ailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>> n.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 ailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>> n.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 skawaguchi at fb.com>>> ://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 ailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>> n.org>>> >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> > Rt4-whois at icann.org ailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>> n.org>>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> > Rt4-whois at icann.org ailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>> n.org>>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> >> >> > (1).pdf>_______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Nov 22 17:23:33 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:23:33 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Message-ID: <20111122102332.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.549a37630d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/d72dd92e/attachment.html From denise.michel at icann.org Tue Nov 22 22:25:43 2011 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:25:43 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB In-Reply-To: <20111122102332.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.549a37630d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111122102332.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.549a37630d.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear Team members, For the sake of completeness and full understanding, here's more detail on how RAA changes can be "immediately implemented" (regardless of where registrars are in their agreement term), as well as the circumstances under which other implementation actions would apply. (This is synthesized from information Staff provided to the GSNO). This is a complex area (not easy to grasp). I can arrange for a briefing by Staff if there's a need/interest. Just let me know. 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 - Negotiating the new form of RAA is effective on the renewal, absent early adoption through incentives. - Consensus policy issues (advanced through the policy development process) are effective immediately upon adoption (by the GNSO and Board). - If the new form of RAA is produced through a PDP, and the topics are within the picket fence, then the new form could be adopted immediately. - In the context of WHOIS, since it?s in the picket fence, these would be effective immediately upon adoption if done through the PDP. - If the goal is for immediate adoption without a PDP, other options include: - Including them in the Code of Conduct referenced in the RAA, which is effective immediately. This could be done as a temporary fix until the renewal of the RAA kicks in. - Making it part of the new gTLD Program, by either: - Making it part of the registry-registrar agreement; - Including it in the appendix that is signed by registrars whenever it adds a new gTLD to be approved; or - Having a new RAA just for new gLTDs. On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:23 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: > > Seth and Team: > > That's somewhat correct, except that there is no given "term" for the RAA. Registrars are signing and renewing throughout the year, so everyone has a different term remaining. > However, if there were a change to the RAA, registrars would either (a) sign it at the end of their existing term (maximum 5 years) or (b) be incentivized to renew early. Option (b) was fairly effective in promoting adoption of the 2009 RAA, with the incentive being a slight reduction in registration-level fees. > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB > From: "Seth M Reiss" > Date: Tue, November 22, 2011 10:50 am > To: "'Smith, Bill'" , > > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > > I am wondering if the distinction being made and perhaps missed here is that > changes to the RAA can be made mid-stream through the PDP but otherwise, a > change can only be implemented when the term of a given RAA runs out and is > up for renewal. In other words, ICANN cannot force an amendment on a > registrar until that registrar's RAA is up for renewal, but a registrar's > obligations under the contract can be amended through a PDP because the > current RAA states that it may. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, Bill > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:31 AM > To: denise.michel at icann.org > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB > > Denise, > > Thanks for the information on the various agreements and how ICANN, the > .org, recommends changes to those agreements. I think these processes are > useful and consistent with the multi-stakeholder model, but I have yet to > see anything in the Bylaws or any policy document that requires contract > changes through a PDP or any other "community process". > > Perhaps I am making to fine a point of this, but I consider it an important > one, and that is that only the Board has the authority to enter into > contracts. It may delegate that authority, typically for the purposes of > negotiation and expedited execution. Further, in the case of ICANN, the > corporation, it has a responsibility to enter into contracts that are in the > public interest (writ large). > > Bill > > On Nov 21, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Denise Michel wrote: > > James - I'd be happy to contribute to this discussion. > > All - > > There are multiple ways to change the Registrar Accreditation Agreement > (RAA) and the various Registry agreements (see current list at > > The RAA can be changed through the GNSO's policy development process (PDP) > and through contract-based options. (See attached Policy Staff paper I sent > a few weeks ago that details these processes; different issues and processes > yield different results -- e.g. immediate mandatory change, change upon > contract renewal, etc.). RAA changes are posted for public comment and > approved by the Board. > > The existing gTLD Registries are governed by the individual Registry or > Sponsorship Agreements (linked above). Staff works with the individual gTLD > Registry to review and change the provisions of their Registry or > Sponsorship Agreement. Changes are posted for public comment and ultimately > approved by the Board. There also is precedent for a PDP aimed at changes > to existing registry contracts (see > In addition, a Registry may file an RSEP application to add a new service > (and change its contract) (information on this is posted at > the Applicant Guidebook contains obligations that will be incorporated in > new gTLD registry agreements. > > Please let me know if you need more information. > > Regards, > Denise > > On Thursday, November 17, 2011, James M. Bladel > > wrote: > > I don't think I'm covering this topic adequately. Denise, perhaps you > could weigh in on Bill's questions? > > > > J. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB > > From: "Smith, Bill" > > > > Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:56 pm > > To: "James M. Bladel" > > > Cc: Susan Kawaguchi >, > "rt4-whois at icann.org" > > > > > > > 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" > >< http://bill.sm > ith at paypal-inc.com/>> > > Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:38 pm > > To: "James M. Bladel" > > >>> > > Cc: Susan Kawaguchi > > com>>>, > "rt4-whois at icann.org< > mailto: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 > > com>>>>>&g > t; > > Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 12:00 pm > > To: Kathy Kleiman > > eiman.com>>> lto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>>>, > > > "rt4-whois at icann.org< > mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>> nn.org>>>" > > >>> cann.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 ailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>> n.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 ailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>> n.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 skawaguchi at fb.com>>> ://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 ailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>> n.org>>> > > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > > Rt4-whois at icann.org ailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>> n.org>>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > > Rt4-whois at icann.org ailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>> n.org>>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > > > > (1).pdf>_______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/7260baa2/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Nov 23 01:36:24 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:36:24 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Copy of User Insight slides at Marina Del Ray meeting Message-ID: <20111122183624.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.f7d0a433d1.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/a7b783df/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN_presentation_PDF 92011.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2093428 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/a7b783df/ICANN_presentation_PDF92011.pdf From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 23 08:31:07 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:31:07 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reminder - Call today @ 20:00 UTC Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Your next conference call is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 23 November 2011** 20:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Team+ConfCall&iso=20111123T20 PASSWORD: 27318 followed by # Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+24+-+23+November+2011 Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Audio-cast (silent observers): http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u Dial-in numbers: Please find below a table which encapsulates dial-in numbers for your countries of residence. Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list which is available at: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Australia 1 800 009 820 1 800 036 775 Sydney T +61 290372962 Melbourne T +61 399996500 Brisbane T +61 731777546 Austria L - 0 800 295 858 M - 0 800 295 138 T - +43 720 882 638 Belgium L - 0800 79210 M ? 0800 79218 T - +32 78 480 286 Brazil L - 0800 891 1597 M - 0800 891 1598 T - +55 613 717 2040 Canada 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 France 0800 90 25 56 T - +33 170618347 Germany L - 0800 1016 120 G - M 0800 1016 124 Russia 8 10 8002 535 3011 T - +7 499 650 7835 United Kingdom 0800 032 6646 T - +44 207 099 0867 United States 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 T ? local toll number ; M ? mobile preferred number ; L ? landline preferred number Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for this call. Thank you, Very best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen at icann.org Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium -- 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/20111123/87a4c489/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 23 10:59:25 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:59:25 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Copy of User Insight slides at Marina Del Ray meeting In-Reply-To: <20111122183624.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.f7d0a433d1.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi Lynn, Many thanks for this! The slides have been added to the private wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/User+Insight+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 From: "lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com" > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:36:24 -0800 To: Alice Jansen > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Copy of User Insight slides at Marina Del Ray meeting Hi Alice, Attached is a copy of the presentation slides by User Insight from our Marina Del Ray meeting in September. This provided the interim results from Phase 1 - the Qualitative interviews conducted in order to construct and formulate the questions used in the quantative online surveys. I don't think I distributed a copy to everyone so asking if you would post on our Wiki for ease of reference for the RT. Thanks! Lynn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/df0bb8a3/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed Nov 23 11:27:44 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:27:44 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] CENTR information on ccTLD practices Message-ID: Hi all CENTR has very kindly provided the WHOIS Review Team with anonymised data about its membership's WHOIS practices. It should be noted that CENTR's membership extends beyond the geographical region of Europe, and so the data provided does not simply reflect practices within the EU data protection environment. Attached are two anonymised reports. One provides information on what information is public, and what can be hidden The other provides information about when "opted out" information will be provided to third parties. Kathy - you kindly volunteered to bring on the ccTLD appendix, and I believe that this will provide a good evidence base to start off our narrative. This can then be supplemented by individual case studies which registries have chosen to share with us, and perhaps a few of the anecdotal comments from the public sessions eg in Singapore. I'm sure that I speak for the entire WHOIS Review Team in warmly thanking the CENTR community and staff for sharing this information with us. Kind regards Emily -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/4c83cf6e/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS and Data Protection.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 578604 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/4c83cf6e/WHOISandDataProtection.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Registration Data Access and Dispute Resolution - Survey Summary (anon for whois review team).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 763844 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/4c83cf6e/RegistrationDataAccessandDisputeResolution-SurveySummaryanonforwhoisreviewteam.pdf From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Nov 23 13:18:25 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:18:25 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reminder - Call today @ 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ECCF2A1.8060303@kathykleiman.com> It's only noon for the West Coast -- hope you can make it! If not, to all in the US, Happy Thanksgiving! Kathy > Dear Review Team Members, > Your next conference call is scheduled for: > > ***Wednesday, 23 November **201**1***** > *20:00 UTC* > /Please check your local time at/: > http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Team+ConfCall&iso=20111123T20 > > *_ > _* > _ > _ > PASSWORD: *27318 **followed by **# * > * > * > *Agenda: * > _*https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+24+-+23+November+2011*_ > _*Adobe room*_*: *_*http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/*_ > Audio-cast (silent observers): http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u > > _*Dial-in numbers:*_ > Please find below a table which encapsulates dial-in numbers for your > countries of residence. > Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list which is > available at: _*http://www.adigo.com/icann/*_ > *Australia* 1 800 009 820 > 1 800 036 775 > Sydney T +61 290372962 > Melbourne T +61 399996500 > Brisbane T +61 731777546 > *Austria* L - 0 800 295 858 > M - 0 800 295 138 > T - +43 720 882 638 > *Belgium* L - 0800 79210 > M -- 0800 79218 > T - +32 78 480 286 > *Brazil* L - 0800 891 1597 > M - 0800 891 1598 > T - +55 613 717 2040 > *Canada* 1 800 550 6865 > T - +1 213 233 3193 > *France* 0800 90 25 56 > T - +33 170618347 > *Germany* L - 0800 1016 120 > G - M 0800 1016 124 > *Russia* 8 10 8002 535 3011 > T - +7 499 650 7835 > *United Kingdom* 0800 032 6646 > T - +44 207 099 0867 > *United States* 1 800 550 6865 > T - +1 213 233 3193 > > /T -- local toll number ; M -- mobile preferred number ; L -- landline > preferred number/ > Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for > this call. > Thank you, > Very best regards > Alice > Alice E. Jansen > -------------------------- > ICANN > Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews > _alice.jansen at icann.org_ > Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64 > Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 > Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 > Skype: alice_jansen_icann > -------------------------- > 6, Rond Point Schuman > B-1040 Brussels, Belgium > > -- > *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 -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/fdb43657/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Nov 23 17:53:16 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:53:16 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations Message-ID: <20111123105316.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.abb8ab9b1c.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/a55d4556/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Current WRT Recommendations - v3 (ET comments) (JMB Edits) -" filename*1=" Nov 23.doc Type: application/msword Size: 77312 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/a55d4556/CurrentWRTRecommendations-v3ETcommentsJMBEdits-filename1Nov23.doc From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed Nov 23 18:04:32 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:04:32 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations In-Reply-To: <20111123105316.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.abb8ab9b1c.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111123105316.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.abb8ab9b1c.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Thanks for your comments James Will you be able to join the call? BTW, in case it was not clear the 50% figure only relates to reducing the "unreachables" - this was heavily discussed in Dakar, and had full consensus of the group. As I said in earlier calls - these recommendations may not be perfect, but they do represent a very hard won consensus within the team. I am therefore hesitant to review substantively, as it will reopen negotiations again. That said, I am all for adding precision, eg "who do we mean by ICANN", and looking at hard targets within the parameters you have suggested. The language about proxies may well be superceded by your and Susan's work - looking forward to having that circulated. On a point of detail, if you are not happy with the reference to registries as privacy providers, maybe we can side step the issue. As I recall, I don't believe there was any particular point we were making about "registries and ICANN-accredited registrars" - the point we were trying to get at was the introduction of an accreditation scheme, so it could read: 1. ICANN should develop and manage an accreditation system for privacy service providers. Then we can work out who we mean by ICANN here. Kind regards Emily ------------------------------ On 23 November 2011 17:53, James M. Bladel wrote: > Team: > > My comments / edits to the recommendations attached. Please note that I > still believe we should structure our Recommendations as previously > discussed (and copied below). Also, Susan and I met yesterday to finish up > the Proxy recommendations, so she should have something shortly. > > Thanks-- > > J. > > --------------------- > 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 -------- > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations > From: Alice Jansen > Date: Tue, November 22, 2011 10:30 am > To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > > Dear Review Team Members, > > A basic compilation of agreed upon recommendations is attached for your > convenience. > The second attachment is the same document lightly edited by Emily to > eliminate redundancies. > These documents may be found at: > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+Recommendations > Please review both and email any feedback you may have. > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- * * 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/20111123/addcea25/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Nov 23 18:14:55 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:14:55 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations Message-ID: <20111123111455.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.1f68c915e0.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/33c9bba3/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed Nov 23 18:26:49 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:26:49 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations In-Reply-To: <20111123111455.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.1f68c915e0.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111123111455.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.1f68c915e0.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi James Thanks for your reply. Yes, I had noted your apology for today's call, and then confused myself! Noted and appreciated that you don't want to blow up any consensus here - not accusing, but I'm sure you'll also appreciate my jumpiness on this having lived through Dakar! OK - let's discuss the rationale for the 50% reduction figure. My recollection / understanding is that these are the ones where the registrant data as absolute junk, and obviously so. eg the "a" in every field record that was circulated a while back, and therefore do not represent the same nuanced situation we find where the record may look bad but actually be good for contact. These are the ones where it's impossible to reach on any level. So, we could certainly expand on that rationale. You're closer to the coal face than many of us, so if you don't think it would be realistic to do a data cleansing job on records like that, please let us know, and perhaps suggest a figure that might be more reasonable, which we can debate. Would also appreciate the assistance of ICANN insiders on who the relevant parties to task with each recommendation would be. Let's try and get some volunteers on this when we speak. Anyone who can't make the call - please feel free to volunteer all the same. We will also discuss the deletion proposed below. Kind regards Emily On 23 November 2011 18:14, James M. Bladel wrote: > Responses in-line: > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations > From: Emily Taylor > Date: Wed, November 23, 2011 12:04 pm > To: "James M. Bladel" > Cc: Alice Jansen , "rt4-whois at icann.org" > > > > Thanks for your comments James > > Will you be able to join the call? > > *JMB-As stated earlier,no. Please accept my apologies. > * > > BTW, in case it was not clear the 50% figure only relates to reducing the > "unreachables" - this was heavily discussed in Dakar, and had full > consensus of the group. > > > *JMB: This is fine, as my complaint is about the 50% but rather how we > arrived at this number. As a businessman, I may desire 50% growth this > year and 50% growth next year, but it's just wishful thinking unless we > substantiate why we think this is an achievable target. > * > > As I said in earlier calls - these recommendations may not be perfect, but > they do represent a very hard won consensus within the team. I am > therefore hesitant to review substantively, as it will reopen negotiations > again. > > > *JMB: Not trying to blow up any consensus positions here. > * > > That said, I am all for adding precision, eg "who do we mean by ICANN", > and looking at hard targets within the parameters you have suggested. > > > *JMB: I think this is critical to ensuring that the recommendations are > actually adopted. Otherwise, they are likely to die on the table if the > Board cannot assign / delegate them appropriately. > * > > The language about proxies may well be superceded by your and Susan's > work - looking forward to having that circulated. > > On a point of detail, if you are not happy with the reference to > registries as privacy providers, maybe we can side step the issue. As I > recall, I don't believe there was any particular point we were making about > "registries and ICANN-accredited registrars" - the point we were trying to > get at was the introduction of an accreditation scheme, so it could read: > > 1. ICANN should develop and manage an accreditation system forprivacy service providers. > > Then we can work out who we mean by ICANN here. > > > *JMB: This would be fine. Recommending (or even allowing) that gTLD > Registries offer a service directly to end-users would be unprecedented, so > wanted to steer clear of that to preserve the Registry / Registrar model. > * > > > Kind regards > > Emily > ------------------------------ > > > On 23 November 2011 17:53, James M. Bladel wrote: > >> Team: >> >> My comments / edits to the recommendations attached. Please note that I >> still believe we should structure our Recommendations as previously >> discussed (and copied below). Also, Susan and I met yesterday to finish up >> the Proxy recommendations, so she should have something shortly. >> >> Thanks-- >> >> J. >> >> --------------------- >> 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 -------- >> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations >> From: Alice Jansen >> Date: Tue, November 22, 2011 10:30 am >> To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" >> >> Dear Review Team Members, >> >> A basic compilation of agreed upon recommendations is attached for your >> convenience. >> The second attachment is the same document lightly edited by Emily to >> eliminate redundancies. >> These documents may be found at: >> https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+Recommendations >> Please review both and email any feedback you may have. >> >> 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 >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > > > > > * > * > > 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/20111123/b6a1b44b/attachment.html From sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Wed Nov 23 18:56:41 2011 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (LEMON, Sharon) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:56:41 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reminder - Call today @ 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C69406EFE@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Hi All, I should be able to join calltonight, but only in recieve mode and won't have access to the Adobe Room. Am available for tasking ;-) Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: 23 November 2011 08:31 To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reminder - Call today @ 20:00 UTC Dear Review Team Members, Your next conference call is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 23 November 2011** 20:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Team+ConfCall&iso=20111123T20 PASSWORD: 27318 followed by # Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+24+-+23+November+2011 Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Audio-cast (silent observers): http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u Dial-in numbers: Please find below a table which encapsulates dial-in numbers for your countries of residence. Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list which is available at: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Australia 1 800 009 820 1 800 036 775 Sydney T +61 290372962 Melbourne T +61 399996500 Brisbane T +61 731777546 Austria L - 0 800 295 858 M - 0 800 295 138 T - +43 720 882 638 Belgium L - 0800 79210 M - 0800 79218 T - +32 78 480 286 Brazil L - 0800 891 1597 M - 0800 891 1598 T - +55 613 717 2040 Canada 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 France 0800 90 25 56 T - +33 170618347 Germany L - 0800 1016 120 G - M 0800 1016 124 Russia 8 10 8002 535 3011 T - +7 499 650 7835 United Kingdom 0800 032 6646 T - +44 207 099 0867 United States 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 T - local toll number ; M - mobile preferred number ; L - landline preferred number Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for this call. Thank you, Very best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen at icann.org Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium -- 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 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/e172835e/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Nov 23 18:58:55 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:58:55 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Overview of Consumer Research Study - working draft in progress Message-ID: <20111123115855.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.0fe65cbe14.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/467b7b83/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UserInsight study summary rev1 23Nov2011-smr rev-1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23919 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/467b7b83/UserInsightstudysummaryrev123Nov2011-smrrev-1.docx From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Nov 23 19:11:07 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:11:07 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Overview of Consumer Research Study - working draft in progress In-Reply-To: <20111123115855.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.0fe65cbe14.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20111123115855.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.0fe65cbe14.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4ECD454B.4030301@kathykleiman.com> Hi Lynn, Sorry if I missed it, but is there a final, or even interim, report from User Insight based on the larger survey? Best, Kathy : > Attached for reference on our call today is an updated working draft > of the summary of the consumer research study. > This draft is still in progress by our subteam but we are distributing > the current version now prior to > call because there are a few points we would like to discuss. > > In particular we are not satisfied with the Conclusions section. > And we disagree with the definition of "Consumer" that is currently in > the overall Report Draft. > There are a few other points too that we need to clarify as well. > > Thanks! > Lynn > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/0ec3dc56/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Nov 23 19:13:41 2011 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:13:41 -0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reminder - Call today @ 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C69406EFE@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> References: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C69406EFE@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: Dear friends, I'm doing my best to follow the discussions in low profile (stealth mode), and I already told Alice I'll miss the call. My apologies. I'm still overwheelmed, with trips to three different States in the next days. Then I think I need and deserve some days off, if I'm lucky enough... Very best from .br, Omar 2011/11/23 LEMON, Sharon > ** > > *NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED * > Hi All, > > I should be able to join calltonight, but only in recieve mode and won't > have access to the Adobe Room. Am available for tasking ;-) > > Sharon > > > > > > Sharon LEMON OBE > Deputy Director > Cyber and Forensics > Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) > 07768 290902 > 0207 855 2800 > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Alice Jansen > *Sent:* 23 November 2011 08:31 > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Reminder - Call today @ 20:00 UTC > > Dear Review Team Members, > > Your next conference call is scheduled for: > > > ***Wednesday, 23 November **201**1***** > > *20:00 UTC* > > *Please check your local time at*: ** > > http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Team+ConfCall&iso=20111123T20 > * > * > * > * > PASSWORD: *27318 **followed by **# * > * > * > *Agenda: * > * > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+24+-+23+November+2011 > * > > *Adobe room**: **http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/* > Audio-cast (silent observers): http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u > > *Dial-in numbers:* > Please find below a table which encapsulates dial-in numbers for your > countries of residence. > Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list which is available > at: *http://www.adigo.com/icann/* > > *Australia* 1 800 009 820 > 1 800 036 775 > Sydney T +61 290372962 > Melbourne T +61 399996500 > Brisbane T +61 731777546 > *Austria* L - 0 800 295 858 > M - 0 800 295 138 > T - +43 720 882 638 > *Belgium* L - 0800 79210 > M ? 0800 79218 > T - +32 78 480 286 > *Brazil* L - 0800 891 1597 > M - 0800 891 1598 > T - +55 613 717 2040 > *Canada* 1 800 550 6865 > T - +1 213 233 3193 > *France* 0800 90 25 56 > T - +33 170618347 > *Germany* L - 0800 1016 120 > G - M 0800 1016 124 > *Russia* 8 10 8002 535 3011 > T - +7 499 650 7835 *United Kingdom* 0800 032 6646 > T - +44 207 099 0867 > *United States* 1 800 550 6865 > T - +1 213 233 3193 > > *T ? local toll number ; M ? mobile preferred number ; L ? landline > preferred number* > > Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for > this call. > > Thank you, > > Very best regards > > Alice > Alice E. Jansen > -------------------------- > ICANN > Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews > *alice.jansen at icann.org* > Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64 > Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 > Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 > Skype: alice_jansen_icann > -------------------------- > 6, Rond Point Schuman > B-1040 Brussels, Belgium > > -- > *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 > > > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111123/0011fce6/attachment.html From susank at fb.com Wed Nov 23 19:17:54 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:17:54 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Message-ID: Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy's revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/d8c5d894/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Type: application/msword Size: 32768 bytes Desc: Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/d8c5d894/Proxyproviderrecommendation112311susandraft2.doc From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Nov 23 19:33:23 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:33:23 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Overview of Consumer Research Study - working draft in progress Message-ID: <20111123123323.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.96cccc491b.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/3183b9a5/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Nov 23 20:04:15 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:04:15 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Overview of Consumer Research Study - working draft in progress In-Reply-To: <20111123123323.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.96cccc491b.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20111123123323.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.96cccc491b.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4ECD51BF.6060905@kathykleiman.com> Great, tx, Lynn. I double checked -- this is is what was presented in Dakar. I thought there might be an additional report, but if the slides are the final report, that's great. Kathy > yes - both an interim and final report are posted on our private Wiki. > They are in powerpoints rather than text documents. > Lynn > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Overview of Consumer Research Study - working > draft in progress > From: Kathy Kleiman > > Date: Wed, November 23, 2011 2:11 pm > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > Hi Lynn, > Sorry if I missed it, but is there a final, or even interim, > report from User Insight based on the larger survey? > Best, > Kathy > : >> Attached for reference on our call today is an updated working >> draft of the summary of the consumer research study. >> This draft is still in progress by our subteam but we are >> distributing the current version now prior to >> call because there are a few points we would like to discuss. >> >> In particular we are not satisfied with the Conclusions section. >> And we disagree with the definition of "Consumer" that is >> currently in the overall Report Draft. >> There are a few other points too that we need to clarify as well. >> >> Thanks! >> Lynn >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/1050fce9/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Nov 23 20:16:20 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:16:20 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Overview of Consumer Research Study - working draft in progress In-Reply-To: <4ECD51BF.6060905@kathykleiman.com> References: <20111123123323.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.96cccc491b.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> <4ECD51BF.6060905@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <1838388573-1322079382-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1196373629-@b11.c9.bise6.blackberry> The interim slides from Marina del Ray have been added to the private wiki as well. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Kleiman Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:04:15 To: Cc: Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Overview of Consumer Research Study - working draft in progress Great, tx, Lynn. I double checked -- this is is what was presented in Dakar. I thought there might be an additional report, but if the slides are the final report, that's great. Kathy > yes - both an interim and final report are posted on our private Wiki. > They are in powerpoints rather than text documents. > Lynn > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Overview of Consumer Research Study - working > draft in progress > From: Kathy Kleiman > > Date: Wed, November 23, 2011 2:11 pm > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > Hi Lynn, > Sorry if I missed it, but is there a final, or even interim, > report from User Insight based on the larger survey? > Best, > Kathy > : >> Attached for reference on our call today is an updated working >> draft of the summary of the consumer research study. >> This draft is still in progress by our subteam but we are >> distributing the current version now prior to >> call because there are a few points we would like to discuss. >> >> In particular we are not satisfied with the Conclusions section. >> And we disagree with the definition of "Consumer" that is >> currently in the overall Report Draft. >> There are a few other points too that we need to clarify as well. >> >> Thanks! >> Lynn >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/b1d14b79/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 23 21:26:10 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:26:10 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adobe link + material Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please join the adobe room:http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Attached you will find a compilation of conference call material. 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/20111123/a1e2ed55/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proxy provider recommendations.pdf Type: application/x-msword Size: 140653 bytes Desc: Proxy provider recommendations.pdf Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111123/a1e2ed55/Proxyproviderrecommendations.pdf From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Thu Nov 24 02:32:16 2011 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:32:16 +1100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F2F65@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hi Susan and all, Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. I'm sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly. In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a 'proxy' is being used) then some special rules apply? Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for 'known' proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? I'm sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I'm just trying to understand the position. As there isn't a recording up yet that I've seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy's revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111124/5df73ec5/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Thu Nov 24 05:15:10 2011 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:15:10 +1100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <20111109112226.GA23343@belenus.iks-jena.de> References: <20111109112226.GA23343@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3244@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello again all, Thanks very much Lutz for following this recommendation through. I haven't seen any responses to this yet (but perhaps I missed them), and I also wonder if it was discussed at the teleconference this morning? While I'd be interested to hear others' views on the precise wording and the data collection mechanism, I wanted to say that in principle I think this is a very useful addition to our recommendations. Once implemented, I expect that it would go some way to addressing concerns about the public accessibility of WHOIS data, and as such I support it. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lutz Donnerhacke Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 10:22 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk Thu Nov 24 05:46:04 2011 From: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk (Sarmad Hussain) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:46:04 +0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] idns Message-ID: <4ecdda1e.0e1edf0a.59c0.ffff8854@mx.google.com> Dear All, Sorry to have missed the meeting (as I was sick), for this belated information (as I was aiming to still attend meeting). Please let me know if I can help in addressing any queries around the IDN draft. Regards, Sarmad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/89f28bd2/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu Nov 24 09:30:11 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:30:11 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F2F65@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F2F65@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: > Hi Susan and all,**** > > ** ** > > Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations.* > *** > > ** ** > > I?m sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see > if I understand this proposal correctly.**** > > ** ** > > In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. > will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all > rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special > subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a ?proxy? is > being used) then some special rules apply? **** > > ** ** > > Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be > special new rules for ?known? proxies (however defined), and in all other > cases we do not acknowledge proxies?**** > > ** ** > > I?m sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I?m just trying to > understand the position.**** > > ** ** > > As there isn?t a recording up yet that I?ve seen, any advice on whether > other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated.*** > * > > ** ** > > Cheers,**** > > ** ** > > Peter**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi > *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan > draft(2).doc**** > > ** ** > > Hello All, **** > > ** ** > > I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough > draft. The attached document contains Kathy?s revisions and comments to my > original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for > the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between > James and I. **** > > ** ** > > I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but > I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we > will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for > the team. **** > > ** ** > > Susan **** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > 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. > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111124/116ebd29/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Thu Nov 24 09:33:07 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:33:07 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Note Pod Content from WHOIS call - 23Nov2011 In-Reply-To: <12068899.17659.1322084186549.JavaMail.breezesvc@pacna7app08> Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, For your convenience, please find enclosed the note pod content of your call held on 9 November. Kindly note that these are draft notes and that Staff will create a preliminary report. Please be kindly reminded that conference call material is posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+24+-+23+November+2011 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 From: Alice Jansen > Reply-To: Alice Jansen > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:36:26 -0800 To: Alice Jansen > Subject: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from WHOIS-Review AGENDA * Roll-call & Apologies * Preliminary reports to adopt: Dakar meeting & 9 November conference call * Review IDN recommendations (Michael & Sarmad) * Sign-off the letter to compliance and discuss sending modalities * Review Emily's suggestions for cuts * Review and discuss James & Susan's proposals on Proxies * Discuss the thread on Thick/Thin or repository of WHOIS * Discuss any comments on the Policy section * Agree/discuss text on the consumer research (Lynn, Seth &Susan) * A.O.B PARTICIPANTS Lynn Goodendorf, Emily Taylor, Michael Yakushev, Sharon Lemon, Seth Reiss, Susan Kawaguchi, Kathy Kleiman, Lutz Donnerhacke, Bill Smith APOLOGIES James Bladel, Omar Kaminski, Olof Nordling NOTES 1. Dakar preliminary report - Adopted 2. Preliminary report 9 Nov - Adopted 3. Letter as appendix to report - no urgency to send the report. Finalize the draft report and letter. (SK) volunteered to provide comments on the letter by next Wednesday - Emily invites Members to submit their final comments. 4. Team thanks Michael and Sarmad. Susan: interest in recommendation 1 - would this fall within the category of PDP? Suggestions from Denise or ICANN Staff on most effective way to have recommendations implementation. Lynn -- for ICANN staff to figure out. Emily: we are addressing the Board - up to them to figure who to task to do what. We need to make sure we review the wording of recommendation. Let's not be specific and let the Board decide. Lynn: recommendations need to be actionnable and implementable. Kathy on recommendation 3: is this a translation requirement we are talking about or an accuracy issue? Accuracy in terms of translation and transcription - local languages. transcribed to ASCII codes without ambiguity. Kathy to work with Michael and Sarmad on legal wording. Bill - recommendation 1 - mechanisms exist. 5. Comments on draft report - AJ to circulate a document containing comments + matching contentious sections of the report. Agree to avoid track changes. Commitment: 30 Nov Sharon to read report (fresh eye), to share with LE colleagues. 6. Agreement needed on these recommendations. Do look like policy but there is some middleground. Lynn: Definition help clarify that - this section very useful in evaluating WHOIS. Consistent with AoC --> services not intended to restrict the access because language does say unrestricted public access.. Susan: go through this document one more time, get on phone with James and Kathy and deliver to group on Monday evening. 7. Should identify problems not make policy. Lutz proposes a central access to repositories - Lutz to take another look at his text to make it more generalized: ICANN nominates suitable provider. Develop language and circulate it. Kathy and James can review. Lynn: this section has linkage with consumer trust section 7. Policy section deferred - to be finished asap 8. Lynn: ntent of AoC is a very broad group of people. If have more limited people (those who something about it), it is not consistent with AoC. Need to bring out potential value of WHOIS to consumer. Awareness program/communication program that promotes WHOIS. Emily: consumers - people close to LE, registrants, trademark - driving the volumes and reliant on it. Lutz: WHOIS does not help if serious organized crime. Lynn: broader education. Lynn: Sanity check. Kathy: Not overconclude from qualitative.. Seth and Lynn to refine draft (redline) and to come back with draft by Monday -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/fa1a885b/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu Nov 24 09:33:37 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:33:37 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3244@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <20111109112226.GA23343@belenus.iks-jena.de> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3244@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Hi Peter Yes, it was discussed on our latest call, and Lutz's proposal found widespread support. The feeling seems to be that this nicely sidesteps some of the difficult industry issues related to mandating a thick whois service for .com. Lutz kindly agreed to update the language here as a result of our discussions. We're talking more in terms of a single, authoritative, * interface* rather than a "repository" (or anything like that which would imply some sort of deposit/escrow system, and also involve the database being held centrally. I believe that what Lutz has in mind is a look up system which addresses the consumer trust point, and the fact that our research shows how difficult consumers find it to understand the many layers of a thin whois query - that's the 20% or so who've actually heard of whois! Kind regards Emily On 24 November 2011 05:15, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: > Hello again all, > > Thanks very much Lutz for following this recommendation through. > > I haven't seen any responses to this yet (but perhaps I missed them), and > I also wonder if it was discussed at the teleconference this morning? > > While I'd be interested to hear others' views on the precise wording and > the data collection mechanism, I wanted to say that in principle I think > this is a very useful addition to our recommendations. Once implemented, I > expect that it would go some way to addressing concerns about the public > accessibility of WHOIS data, and as such I support it. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On > Behalf Of Lutz Donnerhacke > Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 10:22 PM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111124/4345eb6c/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Thu Nov 24 09:35:08 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:35:08 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Note Pod Content from WHOIS call - 23Nov2011 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, For your convenience, please find enclosed the note pod content of your call held on 23 November. Kindly note that these are draft notes and that Staff will create a preliminary report. Please be kindly reminded that conference call material is posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+24+-+23+November+2011 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 From: Alice Jansen > Reply-To: Alice Jansen > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:36:26 -0800 To: Alice Jansen > Subject: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from WHOIS-Review AGENDA * Roll-call & Apologies * Preliminary reports to adopt: Dakar meeting & 9 November conference call * Review IDN recommendations (Michael & Sarmad) * Sign-off the letter to compliance and discuss sending modalities * Review Emily's suggestions for cuts * Review and discuss James & Susan's proposals on Proxies * Discuss the thread on Thick/Thin or repository of WHOIS * Discuss any comments on the Policy section * Agree/discuss text on the consumer research (Lynn, Seth &Susan) * A.O.B PARTICIPANTS Lynn Goodendorf, Emily Taylor, Michael Yakushev, Sharon Lemon, Seth Reiss, Susan Kawaguchi, Kathy Kleiman, Lutz Donnerhacke, Bill Smith APOLOGIES James Bladel, Omar Kaminski, Olof Nordling NOTES 1. Dakar preliminary report - Adopted 2. Preliminary report 9 Nov - Adopted 3. Letter as appendix to report - no urgency to send the report. Finalize the draft report and letter. (SK) volunteered to provide comments on the letter by next Wednesday - Emily invites Members to submit their final comments. 4. Team thanks Michael and Sarmad. Susan: interest in recommendation 1 - would this fall within the category of PDP? Suggestions from Denise or ICANN Staff on most effective way to have recommendations implementation. Lynn -- for ICANN staff to figure out. Emily: we are addressing the Board - up to them to figure who to task to do what. We need to make sure we review the wording of recommendation. Let's not be specific and let the Board decide. Lynn: recommendations need to be actionnable and implementable. Kathy on recommendation 3: is this a translation requirement we are talking about or an accuracy issue? Accuracy in terms of translation and transcription - local languages. transcribed to ASCII codes without ambiguity. Kathy to work with Michael and Sarmad on legal wording. Bill - recommendation 1 - mechanisms exist. 5. Comments on draft report - AJ to circulate a document containing comments + matching contentious sections of the report. Agree to avoid track changes. Commitment: 30 Nov Sharon to read report (fresh eye), to share with LE colleagues. 6. Agreement needed on these recommendations. Do look like policy but there is some middleground. Lynn: Definition help clarify that - this section very useful in evaluating WHOIS. Consistent with AoC --> services not intended to restrict the access because language does say unrestricted public access.. Susan: go through this document one more time, get on phone with James and Kathy and deliver to group on Monday evening. 7. Should identify problems not make policy. Lutz proposes a central access to repositories - Lutz to take another look at his text to make it more generalized: ICANN nominates suitable provider. Develop language and circulate it. Kathy and James can review. Lynn: this section has linkage with consumer trust section 7. Policy section deferred - to be finished asap 8. Lynn: ntent of AoC is a very broad group of people. If have more limited people (those who something about it), it is not consistent with AoC. Need to bring out potential value of WHOIS to consumer. Awareness program/communication program that promotes WHOIS. Emily: consumers - people close to LE, registrants, trademark - driving the volumes and reliant on it. Lutz: WHOIS does not help if serious organized crime. Lynn: broader education. Lynn: Sanity check. Kathy: Not overconclude from qualitative.. Seth and Lynn to refine draft (redline) and to come back with draft by Monday -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/e156fde8/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu Nov 24 10:04:19 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:04:19 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Updated Exec Summary, and ideas for the clean, consolidated report. Message-ID: Hi Alice, Hi All We had some to-ing and fro-ing on the Executive Summary, and the attachment dated 20 October is the latest version that I'm aware of. This is of the whole report, and is prone to misbehave/crash. So, I'm also attaching a clean copy with the changes accepted and Bill's request (that we acknowledge that WHOIS was done by default) taken in. As discussed on the latest call, I have highlighted additional text which I have put in. Some of this fills in place holders (eg the one describing our work), another section which was missing was some discussion of consumer trust. I have made a first attempt here. Alice - please can you add this version into your consolidated draft of the report. I also suggest that we get rid of the "notebook" format in Word. I find it difficult to work with, and am convinced that all it's weird formatting might be responsible for the instability that we're finding in the document. Alice - please would you also keep the appendices as a separate document for now, this will focus our attention on the core report in the coming days. Many thanks Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emily Taylor Date: 8 November 2011 17:54 Subject: Executive Summary To: "Smith, Bill" , Alice Jansen < alice.jansen at icann.org> Cc: Kathy Kleiman , lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, Sharon Lemon Hi there Thanks for this - I've read it many times now, and love it. I started editing in the consolidated document posted on the private wiki, and it's crashed, corrupted and whatever. Anyway, tried to copy the content into a single file so that it's not too huge, but it died. Anyway, here's the whole report, with some suggested edits for the Exec Summary. I think the file might be dodgy so let me know if you can't open it. I think I agree with Sharon's original comment that (to a Brit at least) it reads quite emotionally. Over this side of the Atlantic, we are suspicious of emotion and immediately mistrust it. That's our hang up, not yours, but I did want to try and make the point so that we can reach as broad an audience as possible. 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. -- * * 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/20111124/3d780fd3/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Emily comments on Draft report consolidated v4 - 20 October copy.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 2115452 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/3d780fd3/EmilycommentsonDraftreportconsolidatedv4-20Octobercopy.docx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 111124 Exec Summary ET comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 151951 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/3d780fd3/111124ExecSummaryETcomments.docx From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Nov 24 14:26:47 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:26:47 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] =?utf-8?q?Proxy_provider_recommendation_112311_susan_?= =?utf-8?q?draft=282=29=2Edoc_=5BSEC=3DUNCLASSIFIED=5D?= Message-ID: <20111124072647.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.98f518e9a4.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/0273d728/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2) JMB Edit" filename*1=".docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 20324 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/0273d728/Proxyproviderrecommendation112311susandraft2JMBEditfilename1.docx From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Thu Nov 24 16:24:34 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:24:34 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] =?utf-8?q?Centralized_Whois_Query_system_run_by_ICANN?= =?utf-8?q?_=5BSEC=3DUNCLASSIFIED=5D?= Message-ID: <20111124092434.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.a102da04b7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/45b0565b/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Thu Nov 24 17:33:29 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:33:29 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft report - 24 Nov - please use this Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, First of all, Happy Thanksgiving to our US Members :-). May you enjoy this day with your loved ones (and the turkey)! Please find attached the following: * Appendices ? V1 ? 24 Nov * Draft report clean ? 24 Nov As always, these documents are available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report Please make sure to read documents using print layout: Macs tend to switch to Notebook (unsure why but am looking into it). For any new edits, please use this version. Be kindly reminded to stop using track changes (per the decision reached during your call yesterday) and to insert your contribution directly into the text while making sure to add your initials and to highlight it (color code: yellow). You will find an example page 2 (thanks, Emily! :-)). Also, I have noticed this placeholder " The roles and responsibilities of contracted parties" in the Gap Analysis section and am unsure what it should entail and whether it still needs to be there. Could anyone enlighten me? It may have been superseded by later drafts? Thanks for your help, 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/20111124/9183f973/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Appendices V1 - 24 Nov.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 196442 bytes Desc: Appendices V1 - 24 Nov.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/9183f973/AppendicesV1-24Nov.docx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft report clean - 24 Nov - .doc Type: application/x-msword Size: 1148416 bytes Desc: Draft report clean - 24 Nov - .doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/9183f973/Draftreportclean-24Nov-.doc From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu Nov 24 18:45:00 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:45:00 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft report - 24 Nov - please use this In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very nicely done, Alice. Thank you. My impression on quickly flicking through is that this is really taking shape. Thanks everyone for your tenacity and hard work, particularly over the past month. It's starting to pay off now. I'm going to have a full read through over the next day or two, and will send through some further suggested edits. One that I can immediately see is that we should lose the whole "Compliance Gap analysis" bit as it's duplicated in our letter to the Compliance Team. Also, I think we need a "Conclusions" section before launching into the recommendations. If I may, I'd like to lift out the pre-amble "Findings" done by Kathy/Bill/Peter in Dakar about privacy proxy, and add other bits which introduce our recommendations. Does anyone object? Kind regards Emily On 24 November 2011 17:33, Alice Jansen wrote: > Dear Review Team Members, > > > First of all, Happy Thanksgiving to our US Members :-). May you enjoy this > day with your loved ones (and the turkey)! > > > Please find attached the following: > > - Appendices ? V1 ? 24 Nov > - Draft report clean ? 24 Nov > > > As always, these documents are available at: > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report > > Please make sure to read documents using print layout: Macs tend to switch > to Notebook (unsure why but am looking into it). For any new edits, please > use this version. Be kindly reminded to stop using track changes (per the > decision reached during your call yesterday) and to insert your > contribution directly into the text while making sure to add your initials > and to highlight it (color code: yellow). You will find an example page 2 > (thanks, Emily! :-)). > > Also, I have noticed this placeholder " The roles and responsibilities of > contracted parties" in the Gap Analysis section and am unsure what it > should entail and whether it still needs to be there. Could anyone > enlighten me? > It may have been superseded by later drafts? > > Thanks for your help, > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111124/e316ce8e/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Fri Nov 25 03:25:56 2011 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:25:56 +1100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <20111124092434.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.a102da04b7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> References: <20111124092434.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.a102da04b7.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3A9C@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Thanks Lynn. From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011 3:25 AM To: Nettlefold, Peter Cc: Lutz Donnerhacke; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter, We did have a brief discussion about this and my comment is that Lutz's recommendation is consistent with the Consumer Research study related to the difficulty in locating and finding domain registrant information. I feel we can add a sentence or two in the Consumer Trust section to reference and provide additional support for this recommendation. Best regards, Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 12:15 am To: "Lutz Donnerhacke" >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Hello again all, Thanks very much Lutz for following this recommendation through. I haven't seen any responses to this yet (but perhaps I missed them), and I also wonder if it was discussed at the teleconference this morning? While I'd be interested to hear others' views on the precise wording and the data collection mechanism, I wanted to say that in principle I think this is a very useful addition to our recommendations. Once implemented, I expect that it would go some way to addressing concerns about the public accessibility of WHOIS data, and as such I support it. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lutz Donnerhacke Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 10:22 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111125/da616b9c/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Fri Nov 25 03:28:23 2011 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:28:23 +1100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <20111124072647.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.98f518e9a4.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111124072647.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.98f518e9a4.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3AA6@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hi all, I seem to be having a technical problem opening documents from James. Am I alone in this? It happened with this one, and also with the one that had the edits to the recommendations. James, or Alice ? is it possible to re/send those two documents in a different format? Thanks, Peter From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011 1:27 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org; Nettlefold, Peter Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Team: While Susan and I worked (and will continue to work) on some of the language, here are my comments on the other sections. Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: Emily Taylor > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 3:30 am To: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hi Susan and all, Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. I?m sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly. In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a ?proxy? is being used) then some special rules apply? Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for ?known? proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? I?m sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I?m just trying to understand the position. As there isn?t a recording up yet that I?ve seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy?s revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [cid:~WRD328.jpg] 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111125/564d2417/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD328.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: ~WRD328.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/564d2417/WRD328.jpg From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Nov 25 05:26:18 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:26:18 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] =?utf-8?q?Proxy_provider_recommendation_112311_susan_?= =?utf-8?q?draft=282=29=2Edoc_=5BSEC=3DUNCLASSIFIED=5D?= Message-ID: <20111124222618.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6eea9e9c9b.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/f969ddf5/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD328.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/f969ddf5/WRD328.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft JMB Edits.d" filename*1="oc Type: application/msword Size: 34816 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/f969ddf5/Proxyproviderrecommendation112311susandraftJMBEdits.d" filename*1="oc From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Fri Nov 25 05:58:53 2011 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:58:53 +1100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F2F65@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3D11@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Thanks Emily, that's very useful, and I think I understand where its coming from. I have a few follow on questions, as I'm trying to understand the big picture/strategy, and to try to work through the new proposal fully as this is a key area of interest for me. To be honest, I'm a bit nervous about reopening such a major issue so late in the piece, with only limited time to think through and discuss all the implications. That said, I'm not opposed, just cautious. In terms of questions: is the intention to retain our 'privacy' recommendations from Dakar? i.e. so that we would in effect have three different arrangements: i.e. privacy, 'known' proxies, and 'unknown' proxies? I ask this because if we are to recommend the establishment of parallel 'known proxy' and 'privacy' regimes, we would need to clearly explain and justify any differences between the two (I note that many of the recommendations we agreed for privacy services have been adopted for the proposed proxy recommendations). I expect that a key question we would face is why we were advocating for two different types of privacy-related services? In what circumstances are privacy services not sufficient? Understanding the reason for this may address some of my concerns. Separate to the question of privacy services, we also need to consider the implications of endorsing proxy services. In Dakar, we discussed at length the risks of ICANN explicitly acknowledging (and effectively endorsing) the practice of completely limiting access to a registrant's identity. I had thought that was one of the reasons why we agreed that ICANN should not endorse this practice, and instead that we would argue that: * the full rights and responsibilities of the registrant should accrue to the registered name holder; and * ICANN should endorse and regulate 'privacy' services which could limit the availability of sensitive personal data, without completely obfuscating the registrant's identity. This approach seemed to address the privacy concerns expressed by a range of stakeholders, and to clarify (perhaps for the first time) the chain of contractual rights and responsibilities. Much of this revolves around the question of whether tighter regulation of proxies is needed, or whether simply removing the endorsement and clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities would be more effective. In effect, the new proposal is to advocate the replacement of one mechanism which attempts to regulate proxies (i.e. the current RAA provisions) with another. The intent is obviously to have a tighter set of regulations this time, to reduce gaming/abuse etc. At one level this seems logical, but I am concerned that by introducing doubt into the chain of rights and responsibilities, anything we then do will be like trying to patch a leak that we in effect created. Given that both previous versions of the RAA have tried the endorsement/regulation route with very limited success, I think we would need a strong case to propose a third attempt at this approach as the best way to go. Do we think that this is something we can achieve in practice, and why is it better than the simpler alternative? I hope I'm not making this unnecessarily complicated - I just want to make sure that we don't make a rushed change that has not been fully discussed. I look forward to the views of other team members on this issue. Cheers, Peter From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 8:30 PM To: Nettlefold, Peter Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hi Susan and all, Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. I'm sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly. In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a 'proxy' is being used) then some special rules apply? Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for 'known' proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? I'm sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I'm just trying to understand the position. As there isn't a recording up yet that I've seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy's revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [cid:~WRD298.jpg] 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/20111125/25de1621/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD298.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: ~WRD298.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/25de1621/WRD298.jpg From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Nov 25 06:09:13 2011 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:09:13 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] =?utf-8?q?Proxy_provider_recommendation_112311_susan_?= =?utf-8?q?draft=282=29=2Edoc_=5BSEC=3DUNCLASSIFIED=5D?= Message-ID: <20111124230913.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.0e7db052ed.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/165bdb88/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111124/165bdb88/image001.jpg From m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru Fri Nov 25 05:56:03 2011 From: m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru (Mikhail Yakushev) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:56:03 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <20111124222618.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6eea9e9c9b.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111124222618.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6eea9e9c9b.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA313E5301@M2EMBS1.mail.msk> Dear James, I am sorry to confirm that neither previous versions nor this format are readable? Rgds, M. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 8:26 AM To: Nettlefold,Peter Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Peter and Team: Here is a second attempt with the Proxy document converted to an older version of Word. I am currently using Word 2011 for MacOS, so I'm not sure what the issue is. Please let me know if this works. Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 9:28 pm To: "James M. Bladel" >, "Emily Taylor" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Hi all, I seem to be having a technical problem opening documents from James. Am I alone in this? It happened with this one, and also with the one that had the edits to the recommendations. James, or Alice ? is it possible to re/send those two documents in a different format? Thanks, Peter From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011 1:27 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org; Nettlefold, Peter Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Team: While Susan and I worked (and will continue to work) on some of the language, here are my comments on the other sections. Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: Emily Taylor > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 3:30 am To: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hi Susan and all, Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. I?m sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly. In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a ?proxy? is being used) then some special rules apply? Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for ?known? proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? I?m sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I?m just trying to understand the position. As there isn?t a recording up yet that I?ve seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy?s revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [Image removed by sender.] 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111125/caa0b316/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/caa0b316/image001.jpg From emily at emilytaylor.eu Fri Nov 25 09:34:51 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:34:51 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA313E5301@M2EMBS1.mail.msk> References: <20111124222618.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6eea9e9c9b.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA313E5301@M2EMBS1.mail.msk> Message-ID: Hi all I've been reading the comments on this contentious issue with interest. So, trying to piece together what's been happening, there has been a lot of discussion on this issue and a draft put together with Susan, James and Kathy's cooperation. I had thought that we were edging close to consensus in that small group, but I see that James' latest edits seem to throw open the issue again. I also note that Peter has expressed reservations about introducing a detailed set of provisions this late in play, and that his sense of the discussions in Dakar was that we considered the current contractual provisions (RAA) to be quite clear on the liability accepted by proxies. Where to go from here? When in doubt, let's think about our options: 1. drop it entirely, and revert to what we decided in Dakar. I sense that Susan at least (and others in the group including me) would feel that we have not quite succeeded in our mandate if we do this. 2. Have another attempt to reach agreed language between the small group (+ I would be grateful for your intervention too Peter) 3. Introduce text explaining why we have got to where we are on proxies, ie: - the contractual provisions impose strong obligations on the parties - we view our recommendations as a step along the road, but recommend that this area is actively monitored. We expect to see voluntary good practices, and better standards of reveal and relay, and to that end welcome the studies/policy work/whatever, that's going on in this regard. - if the next Review Team is given similar feedback on failure by proxies to reveal/relay that we have had, the situation will have to change more fundamentally. The community will need to figure out a way of bringing in currently non-contracted parties into a regime which demands minimum standards of behaviour. We would rather see the proxy industry voluntarily adopt such measures. Can I have your reactions to these three broad options, please. I do encourage you to keep working towards language that is acceptable to all. If we can't get there yet, we should not view this as a failure, but a symptom of a complex subject. We can make progress by identifying this as an area of unease where change needs to happen. Our choice is whether we step in and say what that change should be and seek to make it mandatory, or we identify that if change doesn't happen in the right way, the next Review Team will be back. Kind regards Emily On 25 November 2011 05:56, Mikhail Yakushev wrote: > Dear James,**** > > I am sorry to confirm that neither previous versions nor this format are > readable?**** > > Rgds,**** > > M.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *James M. Bladel > > *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2011 8:26 AM > *To:* Nettlefold,Peter > *Cc:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan > draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > > ** ** > > Peter and Team: > > Here is a second attempt with the Proxy document converted to an older > version of Word. I am currently using Word 2011 for MacOS, so I'm not sure > what the issue is. **** > > ** ** > > Please let me know if this works.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks--**** > > ** ** > > J.**** > > ** ** > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan > draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > From: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 9:28 pm > To: "James M. Bladel" , "Emily Taylor" > > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" **** > > Hi all,**** > > I seem to be having a technical problem opening documents from James. Am I > alone in this? It happened with this one, and also with the one that had > the edits to the recommendations.**** > > James, or Alice ? is it possible to re/send those two documents in a > different format?**** > > Thanks,**** > > Peter**** > > **** > > *From:* James M. Bladel [*mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com*] > > *Sent:* Friday, 25 November 2011 1:27 AM > *To:* Emily Taylor > *Cc:* *rt4-whois at icann.org* ; Nettlefold, Peter > *Subject:* RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan > draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > > **** > > Team: > > While Susan and I worked (and will continue to work) on some of the > language, here are my comments on the other sections.**** > > **** > > Thanks--**** > > **** > > J.**** > > **** > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan > draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > From: Emily Taylor <*emily at emilytaylor.eu* > > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 3:30 am > To: "Nettlefold, Peter" <*Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au* > > > Cc: "*rt4-whois at icann.org* " <*rt4-whois at icann.org* > > > > Hi Peter > > As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a > couple of days. > > My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine > these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, > instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan > explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a > proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. > There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship > (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding > is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not > viewed as problematic. > > What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are > the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really > a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this > is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't > really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to > describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these > recommendations. > > I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen > to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. > > Thanks > > Emily**** > > On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter <* > Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au* > wrote:**** > > Hi Susan and all,**** > > **** > > Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations.* > *** > > **** > > I?m sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see > if I understand this proposal correctly.**** > > **** > > In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. > will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all > rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special > subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a ?proxy? is > being used) then some special rules apply? **** > > **** > > Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be > special new rules for ?known? proxies (however defined), and in all other > cases we do not acknowledge proxies?**** > > **** > > I?m sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I?m just trying to > understand the position.**** > > **** > > As there isn?t a recording up yet that I?ve seen, any advice on whether > other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated.*** > * > > **** > > Cheers,**** > > **** > > Peter**** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* *rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org* [mailto: > *rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org* ] *On Behalf > Of *Susan Kawaguchi > *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM > *To:* *rt4-whois at icann.org* > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan > draft(2).doc**** > > **** > > Hello All, **** > > **** > > I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough > draft. The attached document contains Kathy?s revisions and comments to my > original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for > the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between > James and I. **** > > **** > > I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but > I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we > will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for > the team. **** > > **** > > Susan **** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > 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* . > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***** > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > *Rt4-whois at icann.org* > *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois* > **** > > > > > -- > > > [image: Image removed by sender.]**** > > * > * > > 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* > **** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > 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* . > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***** > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111125/8ca7b7a1/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/8ca7b7a1/attachment.jpe From kathy at kathykleiman.com Fri Nov 25 15:54:35 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:54:35 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Updated Policy Chapter Message-ID: <4ECFBA3B.60703@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, I want to share a re-written policy chapter. I read the Executive Summary for inspiration (it has such a good tone) and revised the policy chapter to flow with the rest of the report. It now has a fuller discussion of thin and thick registries, registrar agreement sections, as well as a section called 4 Consensus Policies and One Consensus Procedure. Many, many thanks to the small group that reviewed this chapter so quickly last night, and sent back edits and proofing. It is much better thanks to your editing input! I hope you find this chapter interesting and useful. Best, Kathy -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Policy chapter KK ed 11_25.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 190976 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/79f08d4d/PolicychapterKKed11_25.doc From kathy at kathykleiman.com Fri Nov 25 16:04:28 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3D11@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F2F65@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3D11@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <4ECFBC8C.7090101@kathykleiman.com> Peter, You email below is eloquent, and I urge everyone to read it. We really have to wrestle with these issues, and quickly. I truly wish we had more information, and note there are two very complex studies now taking place in the GNSO right now because the community, as a whole, felt it needed much more information in this area. It is a confusing one! I share the concerns that Peter is raising, but from a somewhat different perspective. If we are "blessing" the existence of proxy and privacy services, then I think we need to make it very clear *to registrants* what is happening. E.g., From a registrant perspective: - when is their name going to be disclosed (privacy service), - when do they have legal liability (privacy service), - when is someone else the "owner" of their domain name (proxy service). I submitted some changes consistent with this goal of the most basic education and information. I think we have to be very, very clear because, from the perspective of .ORG political groups, for example, people's lives may be on the line. Best, Kathy : > > Thanks Emily, that's very useful, and I think I understand where its > coming from. > > I have a few follow on questions, as I'm trying to understand the big > picture/strategy, and to try to work through the new proposal fully as > this is a key area of interest for me. To be honest, I'm a bit nervous > about reopening such a major issue so late in the piece, with only > limited time to think through and discuss all the implications. That > said, I'm not opposed, just cautious. > > In terms of questions: is the intention to retain our 'privacy' > recommendations from Dakar? i.e. so that we would in effect have three > different arrangements: i.e. privacy, 'known' proxies, and 'unknown' > proxies? I ask this because if we are to recommend the establishment > of parallel 'known proxy' and 'privacy' regimes, we would need to > clearly explain and justify any differences between the two (I note > that many of the recommendations we agreed for privacy services have > been adopted for the proposed proxy recommendations). I expect that a > key question we would face is why we were advocating for two different > types of privacy-related services? In what circumstances are privacy > services not sufficient? Understanding the reason for this may address > some of my concerns. > > Separate to the question of privacy services, we also need to consider > the implications of endorsing proxy services. In Dakar, we discussed > at length the risks of ICANN explicitly acknowledging (and effectively > endorsing) the practice of completely limiting access to a > registrant's identity. I had thought that was one of the reasons why > we agreed that ICANN should not endorse this practice, and instead > that we would argue that: > > ?the full rights and responsibilities of the registrant should accrue > to the registered name holder; and > > ?ICANN should endorse and regulate 'privacy' services which could > limit the availability of _sensitive_ personal data, without > completely obfuscating the registrant's identity. > > This approach seemed to address the privacy concerns expressed by a > range of stakeholders, and to clarify (perhaps for the first time) the > chain of contractual rights and responsibilities. > > Much of this revolves around the question of whether tighter > regulation of proxies is needed, or whether simply removing the > endorsement and clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities would > be more effective. In effect, the new proposal is to advocate the > replacement of one mechanism which attempts to regulate proxies (i.e. > the current RAA provisions) with another. The intent is obviously to > have a tighter set of regulations this time, to reduce gaming/abuse > etc. At one level this seems logical, but I am concerned that by > introducing doubt into the chain of rights and responsibilities, > anything we then do will be like trying to patch a leak that we in > effect created. Given that both previous versions of the RAA have > tried the endorsement/regulation route with very limited success, I > think we would need a strong case to propose a third attempt at this > approach as the best way to go. Do we think that this is something we > can achieve in practice, and why is it better than the simpler > alternative? > > I hope I'm not making this unnecessarily complicated -- I just want to > make sure that we don't make a rushed change that has not been fully > discussed. > > I look forward to the views of other team members on this issue. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > *From:*Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] > *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2011 8:30 PM > *To:* Nettlefold, Peter > *Cc:* Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan > draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > > Hi Peter > > As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a > couple of days. > > My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to > combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In > other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say > this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining > what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are > different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on > an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy > might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to > lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. > > What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations > are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is > not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy > provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. > The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the > ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the > target of these recommendations. > > I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you > listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when > it's up. > > Thanks > > Emily > > On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter > > > wrote: > > Hi Susan and all, > > Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. > > I'm sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to > see if I understand this proposal correctly. > > In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? > i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder > assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), > but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly > knows that a 'proxy' is being used) then some special rules apply? > > Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be > special new rules for 'known' proxies (however defined), and in all > other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? > > I'm sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I'm just trying to > understand the position. > > As there isn't a recording up yet that I've seen, any advice on > whether other team members have already commented on this would be > appreciated. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > *From:*rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > > [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi > *Sent:* Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan > draft(2).doc > > Hello All, > > I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in > rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy's revisions and > comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added > proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came > out of discussions between James and I. > > I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue > but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am > hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have > several questions for the team. > > Susan > > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > 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 . > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > > -- > > > Image removed by sender. > > __ > > 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. > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111125/cf621e49/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/cf621e49/attachment.jpe From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Fri Nov 25 17:01:58 2011 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 07:01:58 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <4ECFBC8C.7090101@kathykleiman.com> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F2F65@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3D11@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <4ECFBC8C.7090101@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <01c001ccab93$f2220600$d6661200$@reiss@lex-ip.com> I find myself closely aligned with Peter 's thoughts and analysis. I prefer the simplicity of what I thought we had agreed to in Dakar as well as how that model promoted the underlying interests that we were concerned with: (1) protecting individual's privacy particularly in those countries that had legal regimes that implicate WHOIS data appear to require such protection; and (2) not permitting registrants or proxy services to avoid WHOIS accountability without justification and without significant risk. While I appreciate that there is a concern on the part of members of our Team to acknowledge the proxy industry and regulate it, I am not persuaded that the AOC mandate requires that we accommodate existing interests simply because they exist. My other concern is that what I will term the more "involved solution" does not appear to be going in a direction that is likely to reach consensus. It seems we are mixing privacy and proxy again or at least treating them too much alike, and I think this is something that has plagued the privacy/proxy debate from day one. I have a rather large project this weekend that keeps my away from a computer and means that I am not keeping up with the emails. Meanwhile, I did want to let all you know my perspective. I will of course work with the direction the group decides to go, and I will be checking my emails in the late evening to determine what direction that is. Good luck! Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 6:04 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Peter, You email below is eloquent, and I urge everyone to read it. We really have to wrestle with these issues, and quickly. I truly wish we had more information, and note there are two very complex studies now taking place in the GNSO right now because the community, as a whole, felt it needed much more information in this area. It is a confusing one! I share the concerns that Peter is raising, but from a somewhat different perspective. If we are "blessing" the existence of proxy and privacy services, then I think we need to make it very clear *to registrants* what is happening. E.g., From a registrant perspective: - when is their name going to be disclosed (privacy service), - when do they have legal liability (privacy service), - when is someone else the "owner" of their domain name (proxy service). I submitted some changes consistent with this goal of the most basic education and information. I think we have to be very, very clear because, from the perspective of .ORG political groups, for example, people's lives may be on the line. Best, Kathy : Thanks Emily, that's very useful, and I think I understand where its coming from. I have a few follow on questions, as I'm trying to understand the big picture/strategy, and to try to work through the new proposal fully as this is a key area of interest for me. To be honest, I'm a bit nervous about reopening such a major issue so late in the piece, with only limited time to think through and discuss all the implications. That said, I'm not opposed, just cautious. In terms of questions: is the intention to retain our 'privacy' recommendations from Dakar? i.e. so that we would in effect have three different arrangements: i.e. privacy, 'known' proxies, and 'unknown' proxies? I ask this because if we are to recommend the establishment of parallel 'known proxy' and 'privacy' regimes, we would need to clearly explain and justify any differences between the two (I note that many of the recommendations we agreed for privacy services have been adopted for the proposed proxy recommendations). I expect that a key question we would face is why we were advocating for two different types of privacy-related services? In what circumstances are privacy services not sufficient? Understanding the reason for this may address some of my concerns. Separate to the question of privacy services, we also need to consider the implications of endorsing proxy services. In Dakar, we discussed at length the risks of ICANN explicitly acknowledging (and effectively endorsing) the practice of completely limiting access to a registrant's identity. I had thought that was one of the reasons why we agreed that ICANN should not endorse this practice, and instead that we would argue that: . the full rights and responsibilities of the registrant should accrue to the registered name holder; and . ICANN should endorse and regulate 'privacy' services which could limit the availability of sensitive personal data, without completely obfuscating the registrant's identity. This approach seemed to address the privacy concerns expressed by a range of stakeholders, and to clarify (perhaps for the first time) the chain of contractual rights and responsibilities. Much of this revolves around the question of whether tighter regulation of proxies is needed, or whether simply removing the endorsement and clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities would be more effective. In effect, the new proposal is to advocate the replacement of one mechanism which attempts to regulate proxies (i.e. the current RAA provisions) with another. The intent is obviously to have a tighter set of regulations this time, to reduce gaming/abuse etc. At one level this seems logical, but I am concerned that by introducing doubt into the chain of rights and responsibilities, anything we then do will be like trying to patch a leak that we in effect created. Given that both previous versions of the RAA have tried the endorsement/regulation route with very limited success, I think we would need a strong case to propose a third attempt at this approach as the best way to go. Do we think that this is something we can achieve in practice, and why is it better than the simpler alternative? I hope I'm not making this unnecessarily complicated - I just want to make sure that we don't make a rushed change that has not been fully discussed. I look forward to the views of other team members on this issue. Cheers, Peter From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 8:30 PM To: Nettlefold, Peter Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: Hi Susan and all, Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. I'm sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly. In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a 'proxy' is being used) then some special rules apply? Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for 'known' proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? I'm sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I'm just trying to understand the position. As there isn't a recording up yet that I've seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy's revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- Image removed by sender. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- _______________________________________________ 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/20111125/1ab1dd3c/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/1ab1dd3c/attachment.jpe From kathy at kathykleiman.com Fri Nov 25 18:14:28 2011 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:14:28 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Thoughts/edits on the Full Report Message-ID: <4ECFDB04.1050403@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, I wanted to share a running stream of edits as I review the full document: - I like it. I think all the elements are there! - We need to consolidate in interesting ways. - We need a flow --- a rearranged order to lay out a very clear picture of our work, research and analysis for new and older readers Specific ideas 1. Too many Definitions. I brought "5) WHOIS PARTICIPANTS: Data Producers; Data Controllers; Data Processors" into the Policy chapter and put it in a table. Recommendation: this section from the Definitions. 2. Remove Scope of Work, Section 7, as a section covering the same definitions above. 3. Relocate the Consumer Study to a later chapter, complete with its definitions (please see below). It deserves a home all its own, not stuck at the bottom of the Scope of Work Chapter. 4. Start a new page for every new chapter. 5. After Policy Chapter, keep the Compliance Chapter (as compliance flows from Policy). 6. After Policy Chapter, consider placing the IDN chapter. IDN issues are closely related to policy and compliance -- it's an existing policy issue complicated by translations and transcription problems. Then I would enter the "Study Part of the Report." Is Existing Policy serving the Legitimate Needs of LE and promoting consumer trust? Here I would recommend: 7. A Law Enforcement Chapter: with a write-up of Sharon's Law Enforcement study and its findings. Am I missing it within the text? 8. Include in LE Chapter the sections of Peter's current Gap Analysis extensively discussing input from Law Enforcement. 9. A Consumer Trust Chapter (following the order of the AOC, LE then CT), and include the full text of Lynn and Sharon's writeup right up including its Definitions. Now the Gap Analysis Part of the Report 10. Here Peter's Gap Analysis could flow. It already shows us how, based on all the above, we still have gaps, problems, concerns, etc. a. I like using the additional facts, discussions, Constituency thoughts, written comments, etc., to share insights and information. Could this be a bit more streamlined? b. Perhaps subtitles, some already there, can help readers track our gap analysis with the Recommendations that we wrote, e.g., proxy/privacy. Perhaps some Compliance and Policy Gap Analysis too (briefly to be inclusive). Appendices: Should my Methodology section hit the trash can? Best and take care, Kathy -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/3c322f54/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri Nov 25 18:19:15 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:19:15 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft report + appendices - 25 Nov Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached revised versions of the draft report and appendices document which reflect Emily's comments and the latest version of the policy report (circulated earlier today, thanks Kathy!). I believe these documents are up-to-date. The notebook layout should have disappeared now (if not, please let me know). Wiki link: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report Note that I have taken the liberty to add the ICANN glossary to the glossary appendix to get the ball rolling. Please feel free to delete terms you believe should not be there and to send me a list of those you would like to see in that section. Thanks in advance for your help. Have a nice weekend! 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/20111125/94cf4f47/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Policy RT - Draft report - 25 Nov - Clean.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 722543 bytes Desc: WHOIS Policy RT - Draft report - 25 Nov - Clean.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/94cf4f47/WHOISPolicyRT-Draftreport-25Nov-Clean.docx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Appendices V1 - 25 Nov.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 1454227 bytes Desc: Appendices V1 - 25 Nov.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/94cf4f47/AppendicesV1-25Nov.docx From susank at fb.com Fri Nov 25 21:11:31 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 21:11:31 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <20111124230913.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.0e7db052ed.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20111124230913.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.0e7db052ed.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi James, I can?t open either of the documents on my laptop but can view it on my iPhone not the most optimal. Can you paste in to the body of an email and forward? Susan From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 10:09 PM To: Mikhail Yakushev Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Is anyone able to open these? J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: Mikhail Yakushev > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 11:56 pm To: "James M. Bladel" >, "Nettlefold,Peter" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Dear James, I am sorry to confirm that neither previous versions nor this format are readable? Rgds, M. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 8:26 AM To: Nettlefold,Peter Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Peter and Team: Here is a second attempt with the Proxy document converted to an older version of Word. I am currently using Word 2011 for MacOS, so I'm not sure what the issue is. Please let me know if this works. Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 9:28 pm To: "James M. Bladel" >, "Emily Taylor" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Hi all, I seem to be having a technical problem opening documents from James. Am I alone in this? It happened with this one, and also with the one that had the edits to the recommendations. James, or Alice ? is it possible to re/send those two documents in a different format? Thanks, Peter From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011 1:27 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org; Nettlefold, Peter Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Team: While Susan and I worked (and will continue to work) on some of the language, here are my comments on the other sections. Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: Emily Taylor > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 3:30 am To: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hi Susan and all, Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. I?m sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly. In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a ?proxy? is being used) then some special rules apply? Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for ?known? proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? I?m sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I?m just trying to understand the position. As there isn?t a recording up yet that I?ve seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy?s revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [Image removed by sender.] 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111125/2cfae211/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/2cfae211/image001.jpg From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Fri Nov 25 21:18:04 2011 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:18:04 +1100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <01c001ccab93$f2220600$d6661200$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333D64224F@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hi all Like Seth, I will be monitoring emails periodically through the weekend and will send comments as I can. Cheers Peter From: Seth M Reiss [mailto:seth.reiss at lex-ip.com] Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 04:01 AM To: 'Kathy Kleiman' ; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I find myself closely aligned with Peter ?s thoughts and analysis. I prefer the simplicity of what I thought we had agreed to in Dakar as well as how that model promoted the underlying interests that we were concerned with: (1) protecting individual?s privacy particularly in those countries that had legal regimes that implicate WHOIS data appear to require such protection; and (2) not permitting registrants or proxy services to avoid WHOIS accountability without justification and without significant risk. While I appreciate that there is a concern on the part of members of our Team to acknowledge the proxy industry and regulate it, I am not persuaded that the AOC mandate requires that we accommodate existing interests simply because they exist. My other concern is that what I will term the more ?involved solution? does not appear to be going in a direction that is likely to reach consensus. It seems we are mixing privacy and proxy again or at least treating them too much alike, and I think this is something that has plagued the privacy/proxy debate from day one. I have a rather large project this weekend that keeps my away from a computer and means that I am not keeping up with the emails. Meanwhile, I did want to let all you know my perspective. I will of course work with the direction the group decides to go, and I will be checking my emails in the late evening to determine what direction that is. Good luck! Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 6:04 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Peter, You email below is eloquent, and I urge everyone to read it. We really have to wrestle with these issues, and quickly. I truly wish we had more information, and note there are two very complex studies now taking place in the GNSO right now because the community, as a whole, felt it needed much more information in this area. It is a confusing one! I share the concerns that Peter is raising, but from a somewhat different perspective. If we are "blessing" the existence of proxy and privacy services, then I think we need to make it very clear *to registrants* what is happening. E.g., From a registrant perspective: - when is their name going to be disclosed (privacy service), - when do they have legal liability (privacy service), - when is someone else the "owner" of their domain name (proxy service). I submitted some changes consistent with this goal of the most basic education and information. I think we have to be very, very clear because, from the perspective of .ORG political groups, for example, people's lives may be on the line. Best, Kathy : Thanks Emily, that?s very useful, and I think I understand where its coming from. I have a few follow on questions, as I?m trying to understand the big picture/strategy, and to try to work through the new proposal fully as this is a key area of interest for me. To be honest, I?m a bit nervous about reopening such a major issue so late in the piece, with only limited time to think through and discuss all the implications. That said, I?m not opposed, just cautious. In terms of questions: is the intention to retain our ?privacy? recommendations from Dakar? i.e. so that we would in effect have three different arrangements: i.e. privacy, ?known? proxies, and ?unknown? proxies? I ask this because if we are to recommend the establishment of parallel ?known proxy? and ?privacy? regimes, we would need to clearly explain and justify any differences between the two (I note that many of the recommendations we agreed for privacy services have been adopted for the proposed proxy recommendations). I expect that a key question we would face is why we were advocating for two different types of privacy-related services? In what circumstances are privacy services not sufficient? Understanding the reason for this may address some of my concerns. Separate to the question of privacy services, we also need to consider the implications of endorsing proxy services. In Dakar, we discussed at length the risks of ICANN explicitly acknowledging (and effectively endorsing) the practice of completely limiting access to a registrant?s identity. I had thought that was one of the reasons why we agreed that ICANN should not endorse this practice, and instead that we would argue that: ? the full rights and responsibilities of the registrant should accrue to the registered name holder; and ? ICANN should endorse and regulate ?privacy? services which could limit the availability of sensitive personal data, without completely obfuscating the registrant?s identity. This approach seemed to address the privacy concerns expressed by a range of stakeholders, and to clarify (perhaps for the first time) the chain of contractual rights and responsibilities. Much of this revolves around the question of whether tighter regulation of proxies is needed, or whether simply removing the endorsement and clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities would be more effective. In effect, the new proposal is to advocate the replacement of one mechanism which attempts to regulate proxies (i.e. the current RAA provisions) with another. The intent is obviously to have a tighter set of regulations this time, to reduce gaming/abuse etc. At one level this seems logical, but I am concerned that by introducing doubt into the chain of rights and responsibilities, anything we then do will be like trying to patch a leak that we in effect created. Given that both previous versions of the RAA have tried the endorsement/regulation route with very limited success, I think we would need a strong case to propose a third attempt at this approach as the best way to go. Do we think that this is something we can achieve in practice, and why is it better than the simpler alternative? I hope I?m not making this unnecessarily complicated ? I just want to make sure that we don?t make a rushed change that has not been fully discussed. I look forward to the views of other team members on this issue. Cheers, Peter From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 8:30 PM To: Nettlefold, Peter Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hi Susan and all, Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. I?m sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly. In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a ?proxy? is being used) then some special rules apply? Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for ?known? proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? I?m sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I?m just trying to understand the position. As there isn?t a recording up yet that I?ve seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy?s revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [cid:image001.jpg at 01CCAB3E.68F15430] 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111126/3d91acf6/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111126/3d91acf6/image001.jpg From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Fri Nov 25 21:28:57 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:28:57 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Thoughts/edits on the Full Report Message-ID: <20111125142857.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.bc4eb8bbd6.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/a24919a7/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri Nov 25 21:51:15 2011 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:51:15 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Team, I have saved James' document in .doc and .pdf. Fingers crossed! Best 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: Susan Kawaguchi > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:11:31 -0800 To: "James M. Bladel" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi James, I can?t open either of the documents on my laptop but can view it on my iPhone not the most optimal. Can you paste in to the body of an email and forward? Susan From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 10:09 PM To: Mikhail Yakushev Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Is anyone able to open these? J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: Mikhail Yakushev > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 11:56 pm To: "James M. Bladel" >, "Nettlefold,Peter" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Dear James, I am sorry to confirm that neither previous versions nor this format are readable? Rgds, M. From:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 8:26 AM To: Nettlefold,Peter Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Peter and Team: Here is a second attempt with the Proxy document converted to an older version of Word. I am currently using Word 2011 for MacOS, so I'm not sure what the issue is. Please let me know if this works. Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 9:28 pm To: "James M. Bladel" >, "Emily Taylor" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Hi all, I seem to be having a technical problem opening documents from James. Am I alone in this? It happened with this one, and also with the one that had the edits to the recommendations. James, or Alice ? is it possible to re/send those two documents in a different format? Thanks, Peter From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011 1:27 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org; Nettlefold, Peter Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Team: While Susan and I worked (and will continue to work) on some of the language, here are my comments on the other sections. Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: Emily Taylor > Date: Thu, November 24, 2011 3:30 am To: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hi Susan and all, Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. I?m sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly. In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a ?proxy? is being used) then some special rules apply? Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for ?known? proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? I?m sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I?m just trying to understand the position. As there isn?t a recording up yet that I?ve seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter From:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy?s revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [cid:image001.jpg at 01CCAB73.BCB355C0] 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111125/a5226364/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/a5226364/image001.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2) JMBEdit[3].doc Type: application/x-msword Size: 34816 bytes Desc: Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2) JMBEdit[3].doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/a5226364/Proxyproviderrecommendation112311susandraft2JMBEdit3.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2) JMBEdit[3].pdf Type: application/x-msword Size: 145226 bytes Desc: Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2) JMBEdit[3].pdf Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111125/a5226364/Proxyproviderrecommendation112311susandraft2JMBEdit3.pdf From susank at fb.com Sat Nov 26 05:23:37 2011 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 05:23:37 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3D11@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F2F65@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3D11@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Hello Peter, I am not proposing to change the privacy service recommendations although I did use language from the agreed upon recommendation since I thought it was a good place to start. Also I do not understand why there is concern with regulating proxy registrations and no concern with regulating privacy registrations. I did raise this before the November 9th call but was not able to participate on that call so I understand your concern that is this may appear last minute. II have given this so much thought over the last 6 months and you saw how uncomfortable I was with not addressing the proxy issues in our discussions in Dakar. I simply do not feel that recommending to ICANN that they completely ignore the proxy issue is the way we should be proceeding. My aim with this recommendation is to target the proxy services run by a registrar. They have a direct contractual relationship with ICANN. The argument that we do not understand all the contractual agreements involved in a proxy service makes sense for deeply integrated proxy services where the registrant and service have agreed upon contractual elements. The "retail" proxy service which is offered to anyone who will pay and agreed to the TOS for the most part are owned or controlled by a registrar. Although, we have to be careful to not try and regulate any other business the registrar may enter into the proxy service directly relates to the most critical information of the domain name registration which should be controlled by ICANN. The NORC study estimates that proxy registrations may be used in as much as 25% of the .com registrations. That is a significant number. Currently, several registrars run proxy services that are responsive and professional. GoDaddy is the gold standard from my experience. They have very well defined processes and when you run into a proxy registration that is a concern I know exactly what I have to do to request the information. The registrant is protected but if they are acting badly then there is a standardized process for receiving the website owners information. Below I pulled out from your email "Much of this revolves around the question of whether tighter regulation of proxies is needed, or whether simply removing the endorsement and clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities would be more effective." Clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities leaves little recourse for someone impacted by a domain name serving content with a proxy service registration on the WHOIS. If the proxy service provider does not want to reveal the information ( as many refuse to do now) then the only recourse is to file litigation against the proxy service provider. Then when the WHOIS record changes midstream, they are forced to go back to court to amend the complaint. It is extremely burdensome and expensive. There has been some litigation that has held the proxy service provider legally responsible but nothing that has had a chilling effect on the industry. I cannot open James document on my laptop but once I have a copy I will review his latest revisions. Best regards, Susan From: Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 9:59 PM To: Emily Taylor Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Thanks Emily, that's very useful, and I think I understand where its coming from. I have a few follow on questions, as I'm trying to understand the big picture/strategy, and to try to work through the new proposal fully as this is a key area of interest for me. To be honest, I'm a bit nervous about reopening such a major issue so late in the piece, with only limited time to think through and discuss all the implications. That said, I'm not opposed, just cautious. In terms of questions: is the intention to retain our 'privacy' recommendations from Dakar? i.e. so that we would in effect have three different arrangements: i.e. privacy, 'known' proxies, and 'unknown' proxies? I ask this because if we are to recommend the establishment of parallel 'known proxy' and 'privacy' regimes, we would need to clearly explain and justify any differences between the two (I note that many of the recommendations we agreed for privacy services have been adopted for the proposed proxy recommendations). I expect that a key question we would face is why we were advocating for two different types of privacy-related services? In what circumstances are privacy services not sufficient? Understanding the reason for this may address some of my concerns. Separate to the question of privacy services, we also need to consider the implications of endorsing proxy services. In Dakar, we discussed at length the risks of ICANN explicitly acknowledging (and effectively endorsing) the practice of completely limiting access to a registrant's identity. I had thought that was one of the reasons why we agreed that ICANN should not endorse this practice, and instead that we would argue that: * the full rights and responsibilities of the registrant should accrue to the registered name holder; and * ICANN should endorse and regulate 'privacy' services which could limit the availability of sensitive personal data, without completely obfuscating the registrant's identity. This approach seemed to address the privacy concerns expressed by a range of stakeholders, and to clarify (perhaps for the first time) the chain of contractual rights and responsibilities. Much of this revolves around the question of whether tighter regulation of proxies is needed, or whether simply removing the endorsement and clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities would be more effective. In effect, the new proposal is to advocate the replacement of one mechanism which attempts to regulate proxies (i.e. the current RAA provisions) with another. The intent is obviously to have a tighter set of regulations this time, to reduce gaming/abuse etc. At one level this seems logical, but I am concerned that by introducing doubt into the chain of rights and responsibilities, anything we then do will be like trying to patch a leak that we in effect created. Given that both previous versions of the RAA have tried the endorsement/regulation route with very limited success, I think we would need a strong case to propose a third attempt at this approach as the best way to go. Do we think that this is something we can achieve in practice, and why is it better than the simpler alternative? I hope I'm not making this unnecessarily complicated - I just want to make sure that we don't make a rushed change that has not been fully discussed. I look forward to the views of other team members on this issue. Cheers, Peter From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 8:30 PM To: Nettlefold, Peter Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hi Susan and all, Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. I'm sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly. In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a 'proxy' is being used) then some special rules apply? Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for 'known' proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? I'm sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I'm just trying to understand the position. As there isn't a recording up yet that I've seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy's revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [Image removed by sender.] 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/20111126/f23a3500/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111126/f23a3500/image001.jpg From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Sat Nov 26 16:40:38 2011 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:40:38 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F2F65@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333E1F3D11@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <022c01ccac5a$21da4ad0$658ee070$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Susan If the chain of legal responsibilities were clarified, don't you think there would be an immediate chilling effect on the industry? Only those registrars willing to go out of business as a result of entering into a retail proxy relationship with a naughty registrant would continue the retail proxy practice. The responsible ones I would expect to stop the practice. Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 7:24 PM To: Nettlefold, Peter; Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hello Peter, I am not proposing to change the privacy service recommendations although I did use language from the agreed upon recommendation since I thought it was a good place to start. Also I do not understand why there is concern with regulating proxy registrations and no concern with regulating privacy registrations. I did raise this before the November 9th call but was not able to participate on that call so I understand your concern that is this may appear last minute. II have given this so much thought over the last 6 months and you saw how uncomfortable I was with not addressing the proxy issues in our discussions in Dakar. I simply do not feel that recommending to ICANN that they completely ignore the proxy issue is the way we should be proceeding. My aim with this recommendation is to target the proxy services run by a registrar. They have a direct contractual relationship with ICANN. The argument that we do not understand all the contractual agreements involved in a proxy service makes sense for deeply integrated proxy services where the registrant and service have agreed upon contractual elements. The "retail" proxy service which is offered to anyone who will pay and agreed to the TOS for the most part are owned or controlled by a registrar. Although, we have to be careful to not try and regulate any other business the registrar may enter into the proxy service directly relates to the most critical information of the domain name registration which should be controlled by ICANN. The NORC study estimates that proxy registrations may be used in as much as 25% of the .com registrations. That is a significant number. Currently, several registrars run proxy services that are responsive and professional. GoDaddy is the gold standard from my experience. They have very well defined processes and when you run into a proxy registration that is a concern I know exactly what I have to do to request the information. The registrant is protected but if they are acting badly then there is a standardized process for receiving the website owners information. Below I pulled out from your email "Much of this revolves around the question of whether tighter regulation of proxies is needed, or whether simply removing the endorsement and clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities would be more effective." Clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities leaves little recourse for someone impacted by a domain name serving content with a proxy service registration on the WHOIS. If the proxy service provider does not want to reveal the information ( as many refuse to do now) then the only recourse is to file litigation against the proxy service provider. Then when the WHOIS record changes midstream, they are forced to go back to court to amend the complaint. It is extremely burdensome and expensive. There has been some litigation that has held the proxy service provider legally responsible but nothing that has had a chilling effect on the industry. I cannot open James document on my laptop but once I have a copy I will review his latest revisions. Best regards, Susan From: Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 9:59 PM To: Emily Taylor Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Thanks Emily, that's very useful, and I think I understand where its coming from. I have a few follow on questions, as I'm trying to understand the big picture/strategy, and to try to work through the new proposal fully as this is a key area of interest for me. To be honest, I'm a bit nervous about reopening such a major issue so late in the piece, with only limited time to think through and discuss all the implications. That said, I'm not opposed, just cautious. In terms of questions: is the intention to retain our 'privacy' recommendations from Dakar? i.e. so that we would in effect have three different arrangements: i.e. privacy, 'known' proxies, and 'unknown' proxies? I ask this because if we are to recommend the establishment of parallel 'known proxy' and 'privacy' regimes, we would need to clearly explain and justify any differences between the two (I note that many of the recommendations we agreed for privacy services have been adopted for the proposed proxy recommendations). I expect that a key question we would face is why we were advocating for two different types of privacy-related services? In what circumstances are privacy services not sufficient? Understanding the reason for this may address some of my concerns. Separate to the question of privacy services, we also need to consider the implications of endorsing proxy services. In Dakar, we discussed at length the risks of ICANN explicitly acknowledging (and effectively endorsing) the practice of completely limiting access to a registrant's identity. I had thought that was one of the reasons why we agreed that ICANN should not endorse this practice, and instead that we would argue that: . the full rights and responsibilities of the registrant should accrue to the registered name holder; and . ICANN should endorse and regulate 'privacy' services which could limit the availability of sensitive personal data, without completely obfuscating the registrant's identity. This approach seemed to address the privacy concerns expressed by a range of stakeholders, and to clarify (perhaps for the first time) the chain of contractual rights and responsibilities. Much of this revolves around the question of whether tighter regulation of proxies is needed, or whether simply removing the endorsement and clarifying the chain of legal responsibilities would be more effective. In effect, the new proposal is to advocate the replacement of one mechanism which attempts to regulate proxies (i.e. the current RAA provisions) with another. The intent is obviously to have a tighter set of regulations this time, to reduce gaming/abuse etc. At one level this seems logical, but I am concerned that by introducing doubt into the chain of rights and responsibilities, anything we then do will be like trying to patch a leak that we in effect created. Given that both previous versions of the RAA have tried the endorsement/regulation route with very limited success, I think we would need a strong case to propose a third attempt at this approach as the best way to go. Do we think that this is something we can achieve in practice, and why is it better than the simpler alternative? I hope I'm not making this unnecessarily complicated - I just want to make sure that we don't make a rushed change that has not been fully discussed. I look forward to the views of other team members on this issue. Cheers, Peter From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 8:30 PM To: Nettlefold, Peter Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter As it's Thanksgiving, our US colleagues will (should) be offline for a couple of days. My understanding from last night's call is that our proposal is to combine these proxy recommendations with the ones from Dakar. In other words, instead of saying "we never acknowledge proxies" we say this. Susan explained that they are currently working on defining what is meant by a proxy, and as you rightly point out there are different flavours of proxy. There is the "deep" arrangement based on an ongoing trusting relationship (eg solicitor, client) where a proxy might not be obvious. My understanding is that we're not attempting to lift the veil on these. They are not viewed as problematic. What is viewed as within the ambit of these new draft recommendations are the higher volume, commercialised proxy services, where there is not really a pre-existing relationship between registrant and proxy provider, but this is a low cost add on at the point of registration. The two parties don't really know each other that well. These are the ones we're hoping to describe in our definitions, and they are the target of these recommendations. I hope that this makes it clear, but obviously I do recommend you listen to Susan's description of their thinking from the audio when it's up. Thanks Emily On 24 November 2011 02:32, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: Hi Susan and all, Thanks very much to all who worked on this new series of recommendations. I'm sorry I missed the teleconference this morning, but just wanted to see if I understand this proposal correctly. In short, is this a supplement to the position we agreed in Dakar? i.e. will the situation generally be that the registered name holder assumes all rights and responsibilities (as we discussed in Dakar), but in a special subset of cases (i.e. where the registrar clearly knows that a 'proxy' is being used) then some special rules apply? Or to put it another way, will we be recommending that there should be special new rules for 'known' proxies (however defined), and in all other cases we do not acknowledge proxies? I'm sorry if this was discussed this morning, but I'm just trying to understand the position. As there isn't a recording up yet that I've seen, any advice on whether other team members have already commented on this would be appreciated. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 6:18 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy provider recommendation 112311 susan draft(2).doc Hello All, I apologize for the delay in sending this and that it is still in rough draft. The attached document contains Kathy's revisions and comments to my original proposed recommendation. I have added proposed definitions for the terms we are struggling with. These came out of discussions between James and I. I feel that we must provide a clear recommendation on the proxy issue but I personally seem to keep moving towards drafting policy. I am hoping we will have time to discuss on the call today as I have several questions for the team. Susan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- Image removed by sender. 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/20111126/ca809833/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111126/ca809833/attachment.jpe From emily at emilytaylor.eu Sun Nov 27 07:52:26 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:52:26 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] A word on proxies Message-ID: Hi all I've been following the exchanges with interest. On proxies, our default position should be what we agreed in Dakar. We all (including Susan) agreed those recommendations, despite virtually everyone having reservations on some of the issues. James and Susan (and latterly Kathy) were tasked to see whether they could agree additional text on proxies, and agreement wasn't possible. To me, this indicates that we have pushed the consensus as far as it can go at this stage. I think that we could add a paragraph in our findings to say that we wrestled with the issue of proxies, and set out a summary of both positions (ie concern that it will just be continuation of what we have; vs concern about bringing in an regulating non-contracted parties). We should definitely label this as one to watch, and an area where the community should build up good practices voluntarily. We welcome the study/work/whatever on reveal and relay, and anticipate that it will highlight many of the issues that we have encountered about patchy standards amongst commercial proxy providers: from gold standard (eg Domains by Proxy, [ others? Moniker?]) to others such as Above.com (an ICANN accredited registrar) which does not reveal until after UDRP or other proceedings have started, and has been found against in over 100 UDRP cases. It is an area where improved standards are necessary to promote consumer trust, and we look to the industry initially to work on these. The next WHOIS Review will have more information (ie the outcome of many of the studies which are just started now), and will be able to evaluate how well the industry has done. Susan - I appreciate, and share many of your concerns. However, we committed to a hard-won consensus on this issue in Dakar. You have rightly explored whether it's possible to do more, and it isn't at this stage. You can see from the responses of others in the group (eg Seth, Peter) that the preservation of our consensus is the most important thing at this stage of our study. I hope you will recognise how much we have achieved in this regard. Reading the draft report as a whole, I feel very proud of all of our work, and our teamwork. Kind regards Emily -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111127/d10f6948/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Sun Nov 27 07:55:24 2011 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 07:55:24 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance recommendations Message-ID: Hi all On reading the draft report through, I think I've over-edited the compliance text, and would like to bring one or two of the recommendations and text back in to the main body. I would not alter the language of the recommendations which have been around since July, and were most recently considered in the call before last as part of the letter to Compliance. James has rightly noted that there are a couple which should be policy recommendations (eg the ones about the WHOIS Data Reminder Policy not being effective and needing review). So, I'm going to send out some renewed text on this, and highlight the recommendations that should go in (very few). Before I do this, can I hear any screams of protest please? Kind regards Emily -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111127/e0bb972b/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sun Nov 27 22:06:21 2011 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:06:21 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] A word on proxies Message-ID: <20111127150621.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.7364ab054a.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111127/c1050b10/attachment.html