[Rt4-whois] Fwd: Recommendations and general update

Wed Nov 30 15:16:09 UTC 2011

With the attachment this time.

On 30 November 2011 15:14, Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu> wrote:

> Hi Lynn
>
> Thanks for that on the order of the whole report.
>
> Sorry, I wasn't very clear in what I was suggesting.  I'm not saying the
> entire thing should go into an appendix.  Far from it.  I attach a mark up
> showing my thoughts on what could go into an appendix, and some minor text
> edits otherwise.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
>
> On 30 November 2011 14:20, <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>> Agreeable to putting the Consumer Trust chapter after Chapter 7- Law
>> Enforcement.
>> My feeling is that rather than an appendix for the Consumer Trust
>> Chapter, we should just make appendicies of the two User Insight powerpoint
>> slides.
>> The slides are clear and lay out the same details.
>>
>> But I am reluctant to continue editing on my own working document and
>> feel I should wait for your marked up version.
>> I will also be happy to help Alice with administrative edits such as
>> grammar, spelling, formatting and creating the Table of Contents.
>> There was a section of content I removed because it looked like a Table
>> of Contents to me.  It said here is how our paper is laid out.
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations and general update
>> From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
>> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 8:00 am
>> To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
>>
>> Hi Lynn
>>
>> Delighted to have you online, and thanks for joining so early.  Please
>> press on.  I'll be sending out a marked up version of the recommendations
>> (showing the source - the best of my abilities) within the hour.
>> The table of contents is excellent, and very helpful for the reader.
>>
>> Please would you take a careful look at the following:
>>
>> 1/ We discussed by e-mail last night the possibility of shifting some of
>> the content from the Consumer Research chapter into an appendix. Could you
>> have a look at this, and make suggestions?
>> 2/ Please would you give careful thought to the positioning of the
>> Consumer Trust chapter.  Peter, Kathy and I were thinking it would go very
>> well after the Chapter 7 (what law enforcement want) and before our
>> findings (Chapter 8 ) and recommendations (9).  I see that in your latest
>> mark up you have the chapter where it originally was.  I think this not
>> such a good position, because after it we immediately flip back into
>> background stuff like the history of how the policy developed, what the
>> compliance team does.  The consumer stuff I see as real meat and potatoes -
>> good for the analysis section.  I would appreciate your thoughts on this
>> Lynn.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Emily
>>
>> On 30 November 2011 12:20, <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  I'm back at my computer - my time zone is GMT -5 and it is morning
>>> here.
>>> Not sure whether to do any further editing or not so will stand by and
>>> be available to help.
>>>
>>> I did feel very encouraged that in just making administrative edits and
>>> removing the yellow highlighting, it was easier to see the remaining points
>>> of contention.
>>>
>>> Also felt that creating a Table of Contents is needed.
>>> Happy to help in any way to move this forward.
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>>
>>>  -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations and general update
>>> From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
>>> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 4:41 am
>>> To: rt4-whois at icann.org
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Thanks for your work overnight (or at least, my night).
>>>
>>> I'm trying to pull together the threads of the many e-mail messages that
>>> have passed in the last 12 hours or so.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Version control - this is proving a nightmare for everyone.  I am
>>> sorry that so many of you have been struggling with this.  I can see that
>>> we have had comments on the whole or part of the report from Bill, Susan,
>>> Peter, Lynn.  I understand that Kathy was unable to see Bill's edits, so
>>> rolled back to an earlier version.  There is also an incredibly annoying,
>>> persistent "comment" that is repeated about 100 times randomly throughout
>>> the document, and needs to be eliminated as it's confusing.
>>>
>>> *Action:  Alice, please would you circulate the latest copy of the
>>> Report to the list as soon as possible, getting rid of highlighting except
>>> where it indicates a major disagreement, and leaving in all the comments
>>> from Bill, Susan, Peter and Lynn, but removing that buggy one.
>>>
>>> *2. Recommendations - Peter noticed that the ambit of the privacy
>>> recommendations seems to have changed since Dakar, without an explanation
>>> of how or why that change was made.  Clearly, this will tend to reduce
>>> confidence, so my focus this morning will be to review and circulate a copy
>>> of the recommendations.  I'm assisted in this by Kathy's work yesterday.
>>> She and I have been puzzling over how to clean up/wordsmith/ etc the
>>> recommendations, while respecting the negotiated text.  This is a very
>>> difficult task.  There are also new recommendations on proxies, the one
>>> from Lutz on common interface, and one which I put in about the Whois Data
>>> Reminder Policy (from the compliance letter).
>>>
>>> *Action: I will review the latest draft recommendations, and compare
>>> with the Dakar text.  I will circulate a clean and marked up copy, with the
>>> latest versions of the recommendations, and an explanation for what has
>>> changed and why.
>>>
>>> *3. Deadline.  I'm not prepared to give up yet!  This is our draft
>>> report.  It is not our final version.  I will call it at 5pm UTC today.  I
>>> want us to make every effort to get this out when we said we would. I
>>> really believe we can do this.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>
>

-- 

*
*

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/20111130/b3294f6e/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consumer Trust Research Summary Clean Draft Nov28-1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 56320 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111130/b3294f6e/ConsumerTrustResearchSummaryCleanDraftNov28-1.doc 