[Rt4-whois] Current recommendations

[Emily Taylor]

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 The language about proxies may well be superceded by your and Susan's work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 <jbladel at godaddy.com> 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 <alice.jansen at icann.org>
> Date: Tue, November 22, 2011 10:30 am
> To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" <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