[Rt4-whois] Current recommendations

Wed Nov 23 18:26:49 UTC 2011

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 <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:

> Responses in-line:
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations
> From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
> Date: Wed, November 23, 2011 12:04 pm
> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Cc: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>, "rt4-whois at icann.org"
> <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 <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.
>
>

-- 

*
*

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 