From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Mon Jan 16 18:21:33 2012
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:21:33 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Whois RT update
In-Reply-To: <50E0C02C-A195-4585-8995-631AE21838B3@indom.com>
References: <31582FA079F2AC4FBC8BA78B67C32AA7084B56BE9F@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<50E0C02C-A195-4585-8995-631AE21838B3@indom.com>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFse8751D3kk76RgfO_epW3z1J-QQFd07gbhKQ-RH0ZG18Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all

FYI - Alice will be in touch when we have a time for this call with the
GNSO Council.  Apologies for the short notice, I just received this
notification today.

Kind regards

Emily

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
Date: 2012/1/16
Subject: Whois RT update
To: emily at emilytaylor.eu
Cc: Gnso Chairs <gnso-chairs at icann.org>


Thanks Emily,

That's great. We have set aside a slot for this in our agenda for the next
Council meeting, this Thursday.

Glen, the Council secretariat, will liaise with you to find the time which
best suits you to do this.

Thanks agains.

St?phane

** **
** **
*From:* Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu]
*Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2012 5:59 AM
*To:* St?phane Van Gelder
*Cc:* Emily Taylor; Neuman, Jeff; Wolf Knoben
*Subject:* Re: Whois RT update****
** **

My goodness! What a coincidence. I was on the point of writing to you to
suggest a briefing with Council.

I would be very happy to join a call and perhaps if you let me know the
timings I can throw the invitation open to other members of the Whois
Review Team, in case they are also able to make the call.

Kind regards and best wishes for the New Year

Emily

On Monday, 9 January 2012, St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
wrote:
> Hi Emily,
>
> I hope you are well and I wish you a very Happy New Year.
>
> We have a GNSO Council meeting next week and in planning for that
meeting, I was wondering in the light of the recent NTIA letter that the
Whois is once again very firmly in the spotlight. Would it be useful to
have an update from you or someone from the Whois RT so that the Council
has a clearer idea of what potential policy development might be in the
wings?
>
> Thanks,
>
> St?phane
>
>
>
>

-- 


   ****
*

 *

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. 7630471. 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120116/cbb2a8f7/attachment.html 

From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Mon Jan 16 23:37:52 2012
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:37:52 +1100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Costa Rica - Schedule [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFsechHyrONqvumaATzh3JTNo06nSW8Q9qdq93U3k1AX9tQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKWYFsechHyrONqvumaATzh3JTNo06nSW8Q9qdq93U3k1AX9tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A333ED6183C@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hi all,

Sorry for my patchy replies on this issue lately, but I was out of the office last week.

Thanks to Emily for confirming the dates.

This is just to note that Wednesday will clash with GAC meetings for me, including the drafting of the communiqu? in the afternoon. I will try to make the RT meetings for as long as possible, but there will be an element of juggling involved.

Cheers,

Peter

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor
Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 8:29 PM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Costa Rica - Schedule

Hi all

Thanks to Kathy for motivating all of us (especially me) to turn our minds to the meeting schedule for Costa Rica and for getting the dialogue started on the list.

I received the ICANN constituency travel reminder a couple of days ago, and assume that you did too.  They need our travel dates by Monday at the latest.

With this in mind, please plan for the following:

Monday: public forum

Wednesday: RT4 meeting (all day at present - agenda nearer the time).

So, you can arrive in on Sunday and travel home Wednesday night or Thursday morning.

I hope this helps to resolve uncertainty, and thanks again to Kathy for getting this together.

Kind regards

Emily

--


   [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<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>

www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. 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/20120117/1cc7e293/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/20120117/1cc7e293/WRD298.jpg 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Tue Jan 17 08:33:30 2012
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:33:30 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday
 19 January at 11:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECEF28@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECEF28@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFsewaMy75hSxDJJrg71bmH42xix4JSezeshKQKY2=zrfvw@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

Please join if you can.  I shall be on a Eurostar train, and so will
disappear for about 20 minutes during the journey.  So, if any of you can
make it (I know it's an early hour for our US colleagues), that would be
great.

Kind regards

Emily

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 16 January 2012 23:00
Subject: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19 January at
11:00 UTC
To: "emily at emilytaylor.eu" <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
Cc: St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, "gnso-secs at icann.org"
<gnso-secs at icann.org>


Dear Emily,****

** **

Following on from St?phane van Gelder?s email, we would welcome you on the
GNSO Council call on Thursday 19 January at 11:00 UTC.****

The update on the Whois review team that  you will be providing has been
placed third on the agenda so will probably be within the first 15 minutes
of the call. However, if you would prefer it at another time, please let us
know. The Council meeting usually lasts for two hours. The full agenda is
added below as well as the relevant urls.

****

The dial in numbers for the UK are:****

UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029 **
**

UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029 **
**

UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029 **
**

UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029 **
**

UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029 **
**

Pass code: Council****

** **

However if you would prefer the operator to call you just before your item
comes up, please provide us with your telephone number.****

** **

Thank you very much for your willingness to participate.****

We look forward to hearing you.****

Kind regards,****

** **

Glen****

** **

*Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes)
*Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) letter
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf
show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears
useful for the Council to have an update from the Whois RT so that the
Council has a clearer idea of what potential policy development it might be
called to work on in the near future****

The Chair of the Whois RT has kindly agreed to participate in this meeting
and provide an update.****

Update from Whois RT Chair (Emily Taylor)****

Discussion****

** **

** **


*Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 19 January 2012*****

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19jan12-en.htm****

*Wiki Agenda*
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+January+2012

*GNSO Council motions*
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
****

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated.
http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf****

For convenience:****

* An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided
in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
* An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee
voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.****

Meeting Time 11:00
UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting&iso=20111117T20&ah=2>
****

Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC****

03:00 Los Angeles; 06:00 Washington DC; 11:00 London; 12:00 Paris; 20:00
Tokyo;****

20 January 2012
00:00 Wellington****

Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors
should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.*
***

*GNSO Council meeting audiocast *****

*http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u*****

*Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)*****

**1.1   **Roll Call*
*
1.2 Statement of interest updates

1.3 Review/amend agenda ****

1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the
GNSO Operating Procedures:****

**?         **15  December  GNSO Council minutes ?approved on 3 January
2012.
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-15dec11-en.htm****

. **

*Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes)*****

Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects
list since the previous meeting.
Refer to Pending Projects list
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf****

2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (St?phane
Van Gelder)****

? GNSO activities: 9 (9 - No change).
? Other activities:  10 (10 ? No Change)
? Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change).
? Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change).****

*Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes)*****

Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) letter
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf
****

show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears
useful for the Council to have an update from the Whois RT so that the
Council has a clearer idea of what potential policy development it might be
called to work on in the near future.****

** **

The Chair of the Whois RT has kindly agreed to participate in this meeting
and provide an update.****

** **

Update from Whois RT Chair (Emily Taylor)****

Discussion****

** **

*Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 9 part 2 (10
minutes)*****

As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to
provide a proposal for replacing denial reason #7 by adding a new provision
in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or
unlocked, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation
to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2).*
***

Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html

ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation
#8<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf
ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part
2<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf>[
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf**
**

Council must now consider whether to approve it.****

Refer to motion :****

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
****

** **

4.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).****

4.2 Discussion****

4.3 Vote****

*Item 5: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 8 (10 minutes)*
****

As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to
provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can
be developed to meet the following recommendation "prior to the
consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing
and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status".****

Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html

Council must now consider whether to approve it.****

Refer to motion
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
****

5.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).****

5.2 Discussion****

5.3 Vote****

*Item 6: Cross Community Working Group  Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes)
*****

On January 4, 2012, the CCWG Drafting Team sent the Council Chair its final
recommendations with regard to the GNSO's approach on Community Working
Groups.

Refer to:
Draft Principles for Cross?Community Working Groups (CWGs)
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf****

Council must now consider whether to approve these recommendations.****

Refer to motion
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html****

6.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson).****

6.2 Discussion****

6.3 Vote

*Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 7 (10 minutes)*
****

A resolution was passed by the Council at its Dec 15, 2011 meeting to
address recommendation 7 of the IRTP part B WG on the requirement to lock a
domain subject to UDRP proceedings.****

Refer to Dec 15 resolution : http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112****

The new GNSO PDP rules state that a group of volunteers should be convened
to draft a WG charter, which should then be approved by the Council.****

This is an information item on the state of the DT.****

7.1 Update by Staff (Marika Konings).****

7.2 Discussion****

7.3 Next steps****

*Item 8: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes)*****

As part of the GNSO improvements, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC)'s
Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team worked on a set of
recommendations on a global outreach program****

The Council has considered motions on this recently been no agreement has
been found. As the original request came from the ICANN Board, the Council
leadership feels an answer should be provided. That answer may be not to
approve, to approve, or to determine that the Council as a body does not
want to voice an opinion, although specific GNSO SGs and Cs are obviously
still free to.****

The Council ledareship suggests that is that this topic be discussed at the
GNSO week-end sessions in the forthcoming ICANN International Meeting in
March 2012. To set the scene for these discussions, this agenda item is to
provide some historical context into this topic.****

8.1 Update and presentation from staff (Liz Gasster)****

8.2 Discussion****

** **

*Item 9: Whois Accessibility (20 minutes)*

** **

The GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 6 October to request the Whois
Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as
recommended by the RAP WG as part of the survey it has been tasked to
develop. The Whois Survey Drafting Team provided its response to the GNSO
Council on 10 January (see
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12559.html) noting
that 'the WSWG determined inclusion of the RAPWG?s recommendation aligned
more with policy and thus the WSWG considered it to be out of scope'. In
addition, the WSWG provided the GNSO Council in its response with
additional information 'so that it may make a better informed decision
about the access recommendation'.****

**9.1  **Response of WGWS (Wendy Seltzer, Council Liaison to WSWG****

**9.2  ** Discussion****

9.3 Next steps****

** **

*Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)*

** **

Glen de Saint G?ry****

GNSO Secretariat****

gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org****

http://gnso.icann.org****

** **

*De :* owner-gnso-chairs at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs at icann.org] *De
la part de* St?phane Van Gelder
*Envoy? :* lundi 16 janvier 2012 16:56
*? :* emily at emilytaylor.eu
*Cc :* Gnso Chairs
*Objet :* [gnso-chairs] Whois RT update****

** **

Thanks Emily,****

** **

That's great. We have set aside a slot for this in our agenda for the next
Council meeting, this Thursday.****

** **

Glen, the Council secretariat, will liaise with you to find the time which
best suits you to do this.****

** **

Thanks agains.****

** **

St?phane****



****

 ****

 ****

*From:* Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu <emily at emilytaylor.eu>]
*Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2012 5:59 AM
*To:* St?phane Van Gelder
*Cc:* Emily Taylor; Neuman, Jeff; Wolf Knoben
*Subject:* Re: Whois RT update****

 ****

My goodness! What a coincidence. I was on the point of writing to you to
suggest a briefing with Council.

I would be very happy to join a call and perhaps if you let me know the
timings I can throw the invitation open to other members of the Whois
Review Team, in case they are also able to make the call.

Kind regards and best wishes for the New Year

Emily

On Monday, 9 January 2012, St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
wrote:
> Hi Emily,
>
> I hope you are well and I wish you a very Happy New Year.
>
> We have a GNSO Council meeting next week and in planning for that
meeting, I was wondering in the light of the recent NTIA letter that the
Whois is once again very firmly in the spotlight. Would it be useful to
have an update from you or someone from the Whois RT so that the Council
has a clearer idea of what potential policy development might be in the
wings?
>
> Thanks,
>
> St?phane
>
>
>
>

-- 


   ****

*

 *

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. 7630471. 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120117/b2f5bf62/attachment.html 

From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Tue Jan 17 16:25:04 2012
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:25:04 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19
 January at 11:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFsewaMy75hSxDJJrg71bmH42xix4JSezeshKQKY2=zrfvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECEF28@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAKWYFsewaMy75hSxDJJrg71bmH42xix4JSezeshKQKY2=zrfvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AFA68BAE-5C8E-48ED-86DB-E97EE2C82A70@paypal.com>

I will be attending a meeting in Seattle on Thu and consequently won't be making a call at 3am local time.

On Jan 17, 2012, at 12:33 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:

FYI

Please join if you can.  I shall be on a Eurostar train, and so will disappear for about 20 minutes during the journey.  So, if any of you can make it (I know it's an early hour for our US colleagues), that would be great.

Kind regards

Emily

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
Date: 16 January 2012 23:00
Subject: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19 January at 11:00 UTC
To: "emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>" <emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
Cc: St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>>, "gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>


Dear Emily,

Following on from St?phane van Gelder?s email, we would welcome you on the GNSO Council call on Thursday 19 January at 11:00 UTC.
The update on the Whois review team that  you will be providing has been placed third on the agenda so will probably be within the first 15 minutes of the call. However, if you would prefer it at another time, please let us know. The Council meeting usually lasts for two hours. The full agenda is added below as well as the relevant urls.

The dial in numbers for the UK are:

UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029
Pass code: Council

However if you would prefer the operator to call you just before your item comes up, please provide us with your telephone number.

Thank you very much for your willingness to participate.
We look forward to hearing you.
Kind regards,

Glen

Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes)
Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) letter
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf
show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears useful for the Council to have an update from the Whois RT so that the Council has a clearer idea of what potential policy development it might be called to work on in the near future

The Chair of the Whois RT has kindly agreed to participate in this meeting and provide an update.

Update from Whois RT Chair (Emily Taylor)

Discussion



Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 19 January 2012

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19jan12-en.htm
Wiki Agenda
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+January+2012

GNSO Council motions
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated.
http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf
For convenience:
* An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
* An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.
Meeting Time 11:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting&iso=20111117T20&ah=2>
Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC
03:00 Los Angeles; 06:00 Washington DC; 11:00 London; 12:00 Paris; 20:00 Tokyo;
20 January 2012
00:00 Wellington
Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
GNSO Council meeting audiocast
http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
1.1   Roll Call

1.2 Statement of interest updates

1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
?         15  December  GNSO Council minutes ?approved on 3 January 2012.
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-15dec11-en.htm
.
Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes)
Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting.
Refer to Pending Projects list
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (St?phane Van Gelder)
? GNSO activities: 9 (9 - No change).
? Other activities:  10 (10 ? No Change)
? Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change).
? Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change).
Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes)

Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) letter
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf

show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears useful for the Council to have an update from the Whois RT so that the Council has a clearer idea of what potential policy development it might be called to work on in the near future.



The Chair of the Whois RT has kindly agreed to participate in this meeting and provide an update.



Update from Whois RT Chair (Emily Taylor)

Discussion


Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 9 part 2 (10 minutes)
As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to provide a proposal for replacing denial reason #7 by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2).
Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html

ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf
ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf> [
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf
Council must now consider whether to approve it.
Refer to motion :
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012


4.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).

4.2 Discussion

4.3 Vote
Item 5: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 8 (10 minutes)
As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet the following recommendation "prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status".
Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html

Council must now consider whether to approve it.
Refer to motion
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012

5.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).

5.2 Discussion

5.3 Vote
Item 6: Cross Community Working Group  Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes)
On January 4, 2012, the CCWG Drafting Team sent the Council Chair its final recommendations with regard to the GNSO's approach on Community Working Groups.

Refer to:
Draft Principles for Cross?Community Working Groups (CWGs)
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf
Council must now consider whether to approve these recommendations.
Refer to motion
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html

6.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson).

6.2 Discussion
6.3 Vote

Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 7 (10 minutes)
A resolution was passed by the Council at its Dec 15, 2011 meeting to address recommendation 7 of the IRTP part B WG on the requirement to lock a domain subject to UDRP proceedings.
Refer to Dec 15 resolution : http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112
The new GNSO PDP rules state that a group of volunteers should be convened to draft a WG charter, which should then be approved by the Council.
This is an information item on the state of the DT.

7.1 Update by Staff (Marika Konings).

7.2 Discussion

7.3 Next steps
Item 8: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes)
As part of the GNSO improvements, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC)'s Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team worked on a set of recommendations on a global outreach program
The Council has considered motions on this recently been no agreement has been found. As the original request came from the ICANN Board, the Council leadership feels an answer should be provided. That answer may be not to approve, to approve, or to determine that the Council as a body does not want to voice an opinion, although specific GNSO SGs and Cs are obviously still free to.
The Council ledareship suggests that is that this topic be discussed at the GNSO week-end sessions in the forthcoming ICANN International Meeting in March 2012. To set the scene for these discussions, this agenda item is to provide some historical context into this topic.

8.1 Update and presentation from staff (Liz Gasster)

8.2 Discussion


Item 9: Whois Accessibility (20 minutes)

The GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 6 October to request the Whois Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as recommended by the RAP WG as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. The Whois Survey Drafting Team provided its response to the GNSO Council on 10 January (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12559.html) noting that 'the WSWG determined inclusion of the RAPWG?s recommendation aligned more with policy and thus the WSWG considered it to be out of scope'. In addition, the WSWG provided the GNSO Council in its response with additional information 'so that it may make a better informed decision about the access recommendation'.
9.1  Response of WGWS (Wendy Seltzer, Council Liaison to WSWG
9.2   Discussion
9.3 Next steps



Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>

De : owner-gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-chairs at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-chairs at icann.org>] De la part de St?phane Van Gelder
Envoy? : lundi 16 janvier 2012 16:56
? : emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>
Cc : Gnso Chairs
Objet : [gnso-chairs] Whois RT update

Thanks Emily,

That's great. We have set aside a slot for this in our agenda for the next Council meeting, this Thursday.

Glen, the Council secretariat, will liaise with you to find the time which best suits you to do this.

Thanks agains.

St?phane




From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 5:59 AM
To: St?phane Van Gelder
Cc: Emily Taylor; Neuman, Jeff; Wolf Knoben
Subject: Re: Whois RT update

My goodness! What a coincidence. I was on the point of writing to you to suggest a briefing with Council.

I would be very happy to join a call and perhaps if you let me know the timings I can throw the invitation open to other members of the Whois Review Team, in case they are also able to make the call.

Kind regards and best wishes for the New Year

Emily

On Monday, 9 January 2012, St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>> wrote:
> Hi Emily,
>
> I hope you are well and I wish you a very Happy New Year.
>
> We have a GNSO Council meeting next week and in planning for that meeting, I was wondering in the light of the recent NTIA letter that the Whois is once again very firmly in the spotlight. Would it be useful to have an update from you or someone from the Whois RT so that the Council has a clearer idea of what potential policy development might be in the wings?
>
> Thanks,
>
> St?phane
>
>
>
>

--


   [x-msg://889/]


76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811<tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811> ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322<tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322>
emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>

www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.





--


   [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<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>

www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois




From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Tue Jan 17 16:44:21 2012
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:44:21 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19
 January at 11:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <20120117090357.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.4dc7f72238.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20120117090357.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.4dc7f72238.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFse-GLF+TbOZ-RAxNnm0pntbO+q82BDM-eacqmDhJhz-PA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all

It is early for our US colleagues. It is also short notice. Thinking
through how to manage a slide deck from a train without losing it or
annoying my fellow travellers is another challenge.

Suggest we keep this slot as a brief chat through without slides. Anyone
who can make it will be welcome. We can schedule a fuller slot either f2f
or webinars as appropriate.

Alice pls would you liaise with Glen to schedule a follow up.
Best

Emily

On Tuesday, 17 January 2012, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
> Even earlier since I'm on the west coast (Pacific Standard) this week!
> Sorry, I have to rescind my original "Accept" to Alice's invite.  My
calendar barfed on "Moroccan Standard Time" and thought the call invite was
at noon.  Only upon careful review do I see it is at 3 am.
> Best--
> J.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update
> -Thursday 19 January at 11:00 UTC
> From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
> Date: Tue, January 17, 2012 2:33 am
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
>
> FYI
>
> Please join if you can.  I shall be on a Eurostar train, and so will
disappear for about 20 minutes during the journey.  So, if any of you can
make it (I know it's an early hour for our US colleagues), that would be
great.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 16 January 2012 23:00
> Subject: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19 January at
11:00 UTC
> To: "emily at emilytaylor.eu" <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
> Cc: St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, "
gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
>
> Dear Emily,
>
> Following on from St?phane van Gelder?s email, we would welcome you on
the GNSO Council call on Thursday 19 January at 11:00 UTC.
> The update on the Whois review team that  you will be providing has been
placed third on the agenda so will probably be within the first 15 minutes
of the call. However, if you would prefer it at another time, please let us
know. The Council meeting usually lasts for two hours. The full agenda is
added below as well as the relevant urls.
>
> The dial in numbers for the UK are:
> UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029
> Pass code: Council
>
> However if you would prefer the operator to call you just before your
item comes up, please provide us with your telephone number.
>
> Thank you very much for your willingness to participate.
> We look forward to hearing you.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
> Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes)
> Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) letter
>
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf
> show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears
>
>
> --
>
>
>    <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. 7630471. 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120117/c27e73b9/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Jan 17 16:56:53 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:56:53 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19
 January at 11:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFse-GLF+TbOZ-RAxNnm0pntbO+q82BDM-eacqmDhJhz-PA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CB3B68FB.14A06%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Hi Emily,

Absolutely ? will do so right now.

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 <emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:44:21 -0800
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Cc: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19 January at 11:00 UTC

Hi all

It is early for our US colleagues. It is also short notice. Thinking through how to manage a slide deck from a train without losing it or annoying my fellow travellers is another challenge.

Suggest we keep this slot as a brief chat through without slides. Anyone who can make it will be welcome. We can schedule a fuller slot either f2f or webinars as appropriate.

Alice pls would you liaise with Glen to schedule a follow up.
Best

Emily

On Tuesday, 17 January 2012, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
> Even earlier since I'm on the west coast (Pacific Standard) this week!
> Sorry, I have to rescind my original "Accept" to Alice's invite.  My calendar barfed on "Moroccan Standard Time" and thought the call invite was at noon.  Only upon careful review do I see it is at 3 am.
> Best--
> J.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update
> -Thursday 19 January at 11:00 UTC
> From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
> Date: Tue, January 17, 2012 2:33 am
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
>
> FYI
>
> Please join if you can.  I shall be on a Eurostar train, and so will disappear for about 20 minutes during the journey.  So, if any of you can make it (I know it's an early hour for our US colleagues), that would be great.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> Date: 16 January 2012 23:00
> Subject: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19 January at 11:00 UTC
> To: "emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>" <emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
> Cc: St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>>, "gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>
>
> Dear Emily,
>
> Following on from St?phane van Gelder?s email, we would welcome you on the GNSO Council call on Thursday 19 January at 11:00 UTC.
> The update on the Whois review team that  you will be providing has been placed third on the agenda so will probably be within the first 15 minutes of the call. However, if you would prefer it at another time, please let us know. The Council meeting usually lasts for two hours. The full agenda is added below as well as the relevant urls.
>
> The dial in numbers for the UK are:
> UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029
> Pass code: Council
>
> However if you would prefer the operator to call you just before your item comes up, please provide us with your telephone number.
>
> Thank you very much for your willingness to participate.
> We look forward to hearing you.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
> Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes)
> Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) letter
> http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf
> show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears
>
>
> --
>
>
>    <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<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>
>
> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>
>
> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>

www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120117/9b05f20b/attachment.html 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Tue Jan 17 18:41:56 2012
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:41:56 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] NOTE: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update
In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECEF80@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECEF80@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFsexPJA-tt_RZxzLcDh4uvgedFZG5wK2wdbu+w04NT4bxw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Glen

The natural choice would be Kathy, Vice Chair, but if she is unable to do
it, because of time zones, then I will do it, and ask Alice to drive the
slide deck.   I'll be on the call in any event, and will have plenty that I
can talk about re the findings, recommendations and policy development work
that may arise.

Kind regards

Emily





On 17 January 2012 18:06, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org> wrote:

> Hi Alice,****
>
> ** **
>
> Please see St?phane?s respone below. Could you make some suggestions
> please?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks so much.****
>
> Best wishes.****
>
> ** **
>
> Glen****
>
> ** **
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry****
>
> GNSO Secretariat****
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org****
>
> http://gnso.icann.org****
>
> ** **
>
> *De :* St?phane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com]
> *Envoy? :* mardi 17 janvier 2012 19:01
> *? :* Glen de Saint G?ry
> *Cc :* Neuman, Jeff; KnobenW at telekom.de; GNSO Secretariats
> *Objet :* Re: NOTE: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update ****
>
> ** **
>
> I suggest the WHOIS RT get someone else to do the presentation. It sounds
> like it will be tough for Emily to do it.****
>
> ** **
>
> Glen, can you suggest that to Alice please?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ** **
>
> St?phane****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Le 17 janv. 2012 ? 18:26, Glen de Saint G?ry a ?crit :****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Hi St?phane,****
>
>  ****
>
> Would you like to respond to Emily?s request to possibly schedule a fuller
> session.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thank you very much.****
>
> Kind regards,****
>
>  ****
>
> Glen****
>
>  ****
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry****
>
> GNSO Secretariat****
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org****
>
> http://gnso.icann.org****
>
>  ****
>
> *De :* Alice Jansen
> *Envoy? :* mardi 17 janvier 2012 18:18
> *? :* Glen de Saint G?ry
> *Cc :* Olof Nordling; Marika Konings
> *Objet :* NOTE: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Glen,****
>
>  ****
>
> Many thanks for the call details.****
>
> Since Emily will be on the road on Thursday, she is concerned that she
> might not be able to manage ppt slides and extensive presentation from the
> train. Given the circumstances, Emily decided to keep this slot as a brief
> chat without slides and to schedule a fuller session either face-to?face or
> webinar (as appropriate). Emily has tasked me to liaise with you on this
> matter.****
>
> Please let me know what your views are and what options we have.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks ever so much for your guidance and understanding.****
>
>  ****
>
> Kind refards****
>
>  ****
>
> 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: *Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> *Date: *Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:54:47 -0800
> *To: *Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
> *Cc: *Olof Nordling <olof.nordling at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <
> gnso-secs at icann.org>, Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>, Marika Konings
> <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Subject: *RE: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19
> January at 11:00 UTC****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Alice,****
>
>  ****
>
> Please find the dial-in numbers for the *GNSO* *Council call on Thursday,
> 19 January 2012 at 11:00 UTC*.****
>
>  ****
>
> Other times may be found at:****
>
>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+meeting+&iso=20120119T11&ah=2
> ****
>
> Participant passcode: COUNCIL****
>
>  ****
>
> Would you please ask visitors to identify themselves as WHOIS Review Team
> members so that we can be sure to give them access to the call and the
> Adobe Connect room which is otherwise only available for Council members.
> ****
>
> Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room
> http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/****
>
>
>
> The agenda is posted on****
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19jan12-en.htm****
>
> The Agenda posted on the *Wiki page* usually has the latest updates:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+January+2012
>
> The* **motions* can be found on page:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
>  ****
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.****
>
> Thank you.****
>
>  ****
>
> Kindest regards,****
>
> Glen****
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________
> ****
>
> Participant passcode: COUNCIL****
>
>  ****
>
> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the
> call.                              ****
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ****
>
> Dial in numbers:                  ****
>
> Country                             Toll Numbers          Freephone/Toll
> Free Number****
>
>  ****
>
> ARGENTINA                                                   0800-777-0519*
> ***
>
> AUSTRALIA           ADELAIDE:      61-8-8121-4842           1-800-657-260*
> ***
>
> AUSTRALIA           BRISBANE:      61-7-3102-0944           1-800-657-260*
> ***
>
> AUSTRALIA           CANBERRA:      61-2-6100-1944           1-800-657-260*
> ***
>
> AUSTRALIA           MELBOURNE:     61-3-9010-7713           1-800-657-260*
> ***
>
> AUSTRALIA           PERTH:         61-8-9467-5223           1-800-657-260*
> ***
>
> AUSTRALIA           SYDNEY:        61-2-8205-8129           1-800-657-260*
> ***
>
> AUSTRIA                            43-1-92-81-113           0800-005-259**
> **
>
> BELGIUM                            32-2-400-9861            0800-3-8795***
> *
>
> BRAZIL                                                      0800-7610651**
> **
>
> CHILE                                                       1230-020-2863*
> ***
>
> CHINA               CHINA A:       86-400-810-4789          10800-712-1670
> ****
>
> CHINA               CHINA B:       86-400-810-4789          10800-120-1670
> ****
>
> COLOMBIA                                                    01800-9-156474
> ****
>
> CZECH REPUBLIC                     420-2-25-98-56-64        800-700-177***
> *
>
> DENMARK                            45-7014-0284             8088-8324****
>
> ESTONIA                                                     800-011-1093**
> **
>
> FINLAND             Land Line:     106-33-203               0-800-9-14610*
> ***
>
> FINLAND             Mobile:        09-106-33-203            0-800-9-14610*
> ***
>
> FRANCE              LYON:          33-4-26-69-12-85         080-511-1496**
> **
>
> FRANCE              MARSEILLE:     33-4-86-06-00-85         080-511-1496**
> **
>
> FRANCE              PARIS:         33-1-70-70-60-72         080-511-1496**
> **
>
> GERMANY                            49-69-2222-20362         0800-664-4247*
> ***
>
> GREECE                             30-80-1-100-0687         00800-12-7312*
> ***
>
> HONG KONG                          852-3001-3863            800-962-856***
> *
>
> HUNGARY                                                     06-800-12755**
> **
>
> INDIA               INDIA:
>                           000-800-852-1268****
>
> INDONESIA
> 001-803-011-3982****
>
> IRELAND                            353-1-246-7646           1800-992-368**
> **
>
> ISRAEL                                                      1-80-9216162**
> **
>
> ITALY                              39-02-3600-6007          800-986-383***
> *
>
> JAPAN               OSAKA:         81-6-7739-4799           0066-33-132439
> ****
>
> JAPAN               TOKYO:         81-3-5539-5191           0066-33-132439
> ****
>
> LATVIA                                                      8000-3185****
>
> LUXEMBOURG                         352-27-000-1364          ****
>
> MALAYSIA                                                    1-800-81-3065*
> ***
>
> MEXICO
> 001-866-376-9696****
>
> NETHERLANDS                        31-20-718-8588           0800-023-4378*
> ***
>
> NEW ZEALAND                        64-9-970-4771            0800-447-722**
> **
>
> NORWAY                             47-21-590-062            800-15157****
>
> PANAMA
>                                      011-001-800-5072065****
>
> PERU                                                        0800-53713****
>
> PHILIPPINES                        63-2-858-3716            ****
>
> POLAND                                                      00-800-1212572
> ****
>
> PORTUGAL                                                    8008-14052****
>
> RUSSIA
> 8-10-8002-0144011****
>
> SINGAPORE                          65-6883-9230             800-120-4663**
> **
>
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC                    421-2-322-422-25         ****
>
> SOUTH AFRICA                                                080-09-80414**
> **
>
> SOUTH KOREA                        82-2-6744-1083
> 00798-14800-7352****
>
> SPAIN                              34-91-414-25-33          800-300-053***
> *
>
> SWEDEN                             46-8-566-19-348          0200-884-622**
> **
>
> SWITZERLAND                        41-44-580-6398           0800-120-032**
> **
>
> TAIWAN                             886-2-2795-7379          00801-137-797*
> ***
>
> THAILAND
> 001-800-1206-66056****
>
> UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029*
> ***
>
> UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029*
> ***
>
> UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029*
> ***
>
> UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029*
> ***
>
> UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029*
> ***
>
> URUGUAY
>                                            000-413-598-3421****
>
> USA                                1-517-345-9004           866-692-5726**
> **
>
> VENEZUELA                                                   0800-1-00-3702
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a
> mobile telephone.****
>
>  ****
>
> *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed,
> dependent on the participants' local telecom provider.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a
> mobile telephone.****
>
>  ****
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry****
>
> GNSO Secretariat****
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org****
>
> http://gnso.icann.org****
>
>  ****
>
> *De :* Alice Jansen
> *Envoy? :* mardi 17 janvier 2012 10:19
> *? :* Glen de Saint G?ry
> *Cc :* Olof Nordling
> *Objet :* FW: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19 January
> at 11:00 UTC****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi Glen,****
>
>  ****
>
> Just dropping a line to inform you that Emily Taylor has extended the
> invitation to all Review Team Members. As she is traveling to Brugge on
> Thursday she wants to make sure that Members can step in should she lose
> connectivity. I would be very grateful if you could please send me all
> dial-in numbers so that I may enclose that in the WHOIS invitation. ****
>
> Also, please let me know whether an Adobe connect room will be used for
> this call.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks ever so much.****
>
>  ****
>
> Kindest 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 <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
> *Date: *Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:33:30 -0800
> *To: *"rt4-whois at icann.org" <rt4-whois at icann.org>, Alice Jansen <
> alice.jansen at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Fwd: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19
> January at 11:00 UTC****
>
>  ****
>
> FYI
>
> Please join if you can.  I shall be on a Eurostar train, and so will
> disappear for about 20 minutes during the journey.  So, if any of you can
> make it (I know it's an early hour for our US colleagues), that would be
> great.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily****
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 16 January 2012 23:00
> Subject: GNSO Council meeting - Whois RT update -Thursday 19 January at
> 11:00 UTC
> To: "emily at emilytaylor.eu" <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
> Cc: St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, "
> gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Dear Emily,****
>
>  ****
>
> Following on from St?phane van Gelder?s email, we would welcome you on the
> GNSO Council call on Thursday 19 January at 11:00 UTC.****
>
> The update on the Whois review team that  you will be providing has been
> placed third on the agenda so will probably be within the first 15 minutes
> of the call. However, if you would prefer it at another time, please let us
> know. The Council meeting usually lasts for two hours. The full agenda is
> added below as well as the relevant urls.****
>
> The dial in numbers for the UK are:****
>
> UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029*
> ***
>
> UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029*
> ***
>
> UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029*
> ***
>
> UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029*
> ***
>
> UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029*
> ***
>
> Pass code: Council****
>
>  ****
>
> However if you would prefer the operator to call you just before your item
> comes up, please provide us with your telephone number.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thank you very much for your willingness to participate.****
>
> We look forward to hearing you.****
>
> Kind regards,****
>
>  ****
>
> Glen****
>
>  ****
>
> *Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes)
> *Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) letter
> http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf
>
> show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears
> useful for the Council to have an update from the Whois RT so that the
> Council has a clearer idea of what potential policy development it might be
> called to work on in the near future****
>
> The Chair of the Whois RT has kindly agreed to participate in this meeting
> and provide an update.****
>
> Update from Whois RT Chair (Emily Taylor)****
>
> Discussion****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>
> *Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 19 January 2012*****
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19jan12-en.htm****
>
> *Wiki Agenda*
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+January+2012
>
> *GNSO Council motions*
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
> ****
>
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
> Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf****
>
> For convenience:****
>
> * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is
> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee
> voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.****
>
> Meeting Time 11:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting&iso=20111117T20&ah=2>
> ****
>
> Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC****
>
> 03:00 Los Angeles; 06:00 Washington DC; 11:00 London; 12:00 Paris; 20:00
> Tokyo;****
>
> 20 January 2012
> 00:00 Wellington****
>
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors
> should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
> ****
>
> *GNSO Council meeting audiocast*****
>
> *http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u*****
>
> *Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)*****
>
> 1.1   Roll Call* **
> *
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
>
> 1.3 Review/amend agenda****
>
> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the
> GNSO Operating Procedures:****
>
> ?         15  December  GNSO Council minutes ?approved on 3 January 2012.
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-15dec11-en.htm****
>
> .****
>
> *Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes)*****
>
> Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending
> Projects list since the previous meeting.
> Refer to Pending Projects list
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf****
>
> 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (St?phane
> Van Gelder)****
>
> ? GNSO activities: 9 (9 - No change).
> ? Other activities:  10 (10 ? No Change)
> ? Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change).
> ? Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change).****
>
> *Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes)*****
>
> Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and Information
> Administration (NTIA) letter
> http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf
> ****
>
> show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears
> useful for the Council to have an update from the Whois RT so that the
> Council has a clearer idea of what potential policy development it might be
> called to work on in the near future.****
>
>  ****
>
> The Chair of the Whois RT has kindly agreed to participate in this meeting
> and provide an update.****
>
>  ****
>
> Update from Whois RT Chair (Emily Taylor)****
>
> Discussion****
>
>  ****
>
> *Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 9 part 2 (10
> minutes)*****
>
> As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011
> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to
> provide a proposal for replacing denial reason #7 by adding a new provision
> in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or
> unlocked, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation
> to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2).
> ****
>
> Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html
>
> ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf>
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf
> ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf>
>  [
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf
> ****
>
> Council must now consider whether to approve it.****
>
> Refer to motion :****
>
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).****
>
> 4.2 Discussion****
>
> 4.3 Vote****
>
> *Item 5: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 8 (10
> minutes)*****
>
> As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011
> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to
> provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can
> be developed to meet the following recommendation "prior to the
> consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing
> and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status".****
>
> Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html
>
> Council must now consider whether to approve it.****
>
> Refer to motion
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
> ****
>
> 5.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).****
>
> 5.2 Discussion****
>
> 5.3 Vote****
>
> *Item 6: Cross Community Working Group  Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10
> minutes)*****
>
> On January 4, 2012, the CCWG Drafting Team sent the Council Chair its
> final recommendations with regard to the GNSO's approach on Community
> Working Groups.
>
> Refer to:
> Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups (CWGs)
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf****
>
> Council must now consider whether to approve these recommendations.****
>
> Refer to motion
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html****
>
> 6.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson).****
>
> 6.2 Discussion****
>
> 6.3 Vote
>
> *Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 7 (10
> minutes)*****
>
> A resolution was passed by the Council at its Dec 15, 2011 meeting to
> address recommendation 7 of the IRTP part B WG on the requirement to lock a
> domain subject to UDRP proceedings.****
>
> Refer to Dec 15 resolution : http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112****
>
> The new GNSO PDP rules state that a group of volunteers should be convened
> to draft a WG charter, which should then be approved by the Council.****
>
> This is an information item on the state of the DT.****
>
> 7.1 Update by Staff (Marika Konings).****
>
> 7.2 Discussion****
>
> 7.3 Next steps****
>
> *Item 8: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes)*****
>
> As part of the GNSO improvements, the Operations Steering Committee
> (OSC)'s Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team worked on a
> set of recommendations on a global outreach program****
>
> The Council has considered motions on this recently been no agreement has
> been found. As the original request came from the ICANN Board, the Council
> leadership feels an answer should be provided. That answer may be not to
> approve, to approve, or to determine that the Council as a body does not
> want to voice an opinion, although specific GNSO SGs and Cs are obviously
> still free to.****
>
> The Council ledareship suggests that is that this topic be discussed at
> the GNSO week-end sessions in the forthcoming ICANN International Meeting
> in March 2012. To set the scene for these discussions, this agenda item is
> to provide some historical context into this topic.****
>
> 8.1 Update and presentation from staff (Liz Gasster)****
>
> 8.2 Discussion****
>
>  ****
>
> *Item 9: Whois Accessibility (20 minutes)*****
>
>  ****
>
> The GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 6 October to request the Whois
> Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as
> recommended by the RAP WG as part of the survey it has been tasked to
> develop. The Whois Survey Drafting Team provided its response to the GNSO
> Council on 10 January (see
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12559.html)
> noting that 'the WSWG determined inclusion of the RAPWG?s recommendation
> aligned more with policy and thus the WSWG considered it to be out of
> scope'. In addition, the WSWG provided the GNSO Council in its response
> with additional information 'so that it may make a better informed decision
> about the access recommendation'.****
>
> 9.1  Response of WGWS (Wendy Seltzer, Council Liaison to WSWG****
>
> 9.2   Discussion****
>
> 9.3 Next steps****
>
>  ****
>
> *Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)*****
>
>  ****
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry****
>
> GNSO Secretariat****
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org****
>
> http://gnso.icann.org****
>
>  ****
>
> *De :* owner-gnso-chairs at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs at icann.org] *De
> la part de* St?phane Van Gelder
> *Envoy? :* lundi 16 janvier 2012 16:56
> *? :* emily at emilytaylor.eu
> *Cc :* Gnso Chairs
> *Objet :* [gnso-chairs] Whois RT update****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks Emily,****
>
>  ****
>
> That's great. We have set aside a slot for this in our agenda for the next
> Council meeting, this Thursday.****
>
>  ****
>
> Glen, the Council secretariat, will liaise with you to find the time which
> best suits you to do this.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks agains.****
>
>  ****
>
> St?phane****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu <emily at emilytaylor.eu>]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2012 5:59 AM
> *To:* St?phane Van Gelder
> *Cc:* Emily Taylor; Neuman, Jeff; Wolf Knoben
> *Subject:* Re: Whois RT update****
>
>  ****
>
> My goodness! What a coincidence. I was on the point of writing to you to
> suggest a briefing with Council.
>
> I would be very happy to join a call and perhaps if you let me know the
> timings I can throw the invitation open to other members of the Whois
> Review Team, in case they are also able to make the call.
>
> Kind regards and best wishes for the New Year
>
> Emily
>
> On Monday, 9 January 2012, St?phane Van Gelder <
> stephane.vangelder at indom.com> wrote:
> > Hi Emily,
> >
> > I hope you are well and I wish you a very Happy New Year.
> >
> > We have a GNSO Council meeting next week and in planning for that
> meeting, I was wondering in the light of the recent NTIA letter that the
> Whois is once again very firmly in the spotlight. Would it be useful to
> have an update from you or someone from the Whois RT so that the Council
> has a clearer idea of what potential policy development might be in the
> wings?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > St?phane
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>
>    ****
>
> *
>
> *
>
> 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>    [image: Image supprim?e par l'exp?diteur.]****
>
> *
>
>  *
>
> 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. 7630471. 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120117/f2777624/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/20120117/f2777624/attachment.jpe 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Wed Jan 18 16:37:13 2012
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:37:13 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget framework & meetings
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQGnPnF+dbjN3KtJnDc0WKCbjOCcrVar4YiWzgGtxYB5wg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Team Members,

For your information -- a public comment period has opened on ICANN's
fiscal year 2013 budget framework:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17jan12-en.htm

Community input is solicited early in our 5 month-long budget process to
help prioritize ICANN's work and expenditures in the coming fiscal year
(which starts 1 July).  You'll note Whois-related priorities in the initial
draft, and once the Team's report has been finalized and acted upon by the
Board any resulting implementation will be captured in future
drafts/budgets.

In parallel, the Board is expected to act on ICANN's proposed 2012-2015
Strategic Plan in the next few weeks (http://www.icann.org/en/planning/).

Speaking of the Board... we should have a proposed time slot for both the
Team's conference call with Board members and a meeting with the Board in
Costa Rica shortly.  Diane and Alice are working out details. (It is a
particularly busy time for the Board so please bear with  us.)

In addition, the Team's public forum is on the Costa Rica meeting schedule,
which will be finalized for publication early next month.

Regards,
Denise

Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120118/dd47a14b/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Thu Jan 19 10:12:11 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:12:11 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] DOODLE POLL! - Call with GAC
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFsefRGH9uTqCi58cHakApMMTYVqGpp6oRHToc5A6jU6XfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CB3DAC2B.14B60%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

With reference to Emily's message circulated on 10 January, please fill in the enclosed doodle poll so that we may determine the most convenient date for your call with the GAC
http://www.doodle.com/t8rwryhzxevx8z74

Note that these slots are GAC Secretariat's suggestions.

We would be very grateful if you could please complete this doodle poll as soon as possible ? by Monday, 23 January at the very latest.

Thanks for your help and cooperation,

Very best regards

Alice
From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:54:23 -0800
To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling at icann.org<mailto:olof.nordling at icann.org>>
Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Subject: Call with GAC

Hi

I've been in touch with GAC GNSO and Board to see if there's a possibility of setting up a call before Costa Rica with each of them

Heather has suggested that you liaise with Jeannie to arrange a suitable time in February.

Will let you know if I hear back from the others.

Best

Emily

--


   [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif]



76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>

www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120119/cc18a180/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Thu Jan 19 10:51:53 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:51:53 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reminder - Audiocast GNSO call + slides
Message-ID: <CB3DB689.14B82%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

If you are not a presenter and do not intend to speak during the call, please join the GNSO Council audiocast at: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
The slides that will be used during the presentation are attached.

Adobe room URL: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/

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/20120119/f71e50cc/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO - WHOIS RT v3.2.pptx
Type: application/x-mspowerpoint
Size: 116648 bytes
Desc: GNSO - WHOIS RT v3.2.pptx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120119/f71e50cc/GNSO-WHOISRTv3.2.pptx 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Sun Jan 22 18:52:32 2012
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:52:32 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review Team - briefing
In-Reply-To: <BA304F74-2AC2-4832-9924-C248E56FA001@shinkuro.com>
References: <CAKWYFsdQ=aFXhd9A13eqV5_6qwgUaECbyC1x5WEfTCBwsBh5Rw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BA304F74-2AC2-4832-9924-C248E56FA001@shinkuro.com>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFsec2JMu-Q4G-UWKT66yP+D70GcD7gUGcbw_+TbLap2HXQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Steve

Thank you for your recent mail, and for your detailed comments on the draft
report of the WHOIS Review Team.

I will forward your substantive comments on the draft report for
publication, and have cc'd the Review Team so that they have an early view
of them. Your input will receive careful consideration along with the other
public comments.  I will not respond to those substantive comments here,
but look forward to discussing them with you as part of our future
engagement with the Board. You will note that the Review Team has
specifically asked for feedback on who should be tasked with the
recommendations, timeframes and priorities.

I will respond here to the points that you raise about process.  You are
right to focus on it, as it seems to me that the Board has not yet absorbed
the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews into its psyche or planning
processes.  I share your view that it is appropriate to take stock at this
stage.

You raise concerns about the quality of the AoC Reviews, and seem to
suggest that the Board has a role to play in quality control. I
respectfully disagree.  From my perspective, the Affirmation of Commitments
Reviews provide an important accountability mechanism for ICANN as an
organisation, community and Board.  The fact that they are scheduled to be
repeated at regular intervals strengthens their role in evaluating ICANN's
performance over time in key areas.  In that context, the Board has a role
(through the CEO) as co-selector of the Review Team members, providing
input into the Reviews as an interested stakeholder, and overseeing the
implementation of the recommendations.

It is vital for the credibility of the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews
that the Board is not involved in the final editing of the report beyond
providing input with other stakeholders, in an open and transparent manner.
 These are independent reviews, conducted on behalf of the signatories of
the Affirmation of Commitments in the public interest.  They are not Board
outputs.  If the Board decides that the quality of the individuals on a
Review Team is sub-standard (as your reply seems to indicate is your view),
or disagrees with the findings or recommendations, or finds the quality of
the report itself to be poor, these are issues for the Board to raise in
the appropriate manner.  In my view, the most effective way of doing so
would have been for the Board to engage with the Review Team throughout the
process, as others within the ICANN community have done.

If I have misunderstood your intent in this regard, please let me know.

With these points in mind, a possible approach might be for the Board to
arrange orientation/training /brainstorming sessions to identify the role
of the Board with respect to the Reviews, and appropriate mechanisms for
the Board to participate in and respond to them. The former chairs of
Review Teams could be involved, as could the NTIA (as the other signatory
of the AoC) or the GAC (as the NTIA's proxy).

As for selection of the Review Team members, any issues you have with the
quality of the individuals or distribution of skill-sets you should raise
with your CEO and the Chair of the GAC, who selected us.  I would say,
having had the privilege to lead the WHOIS Review Team over the past year,
that the individuals are of the highest competence, and showed a readiness
both to argue their own corner, and to subsume personal or professional
interests to the public interest in completing our task.  As volunteers,
they also gave generously of their time in an effort to create a timely and
quality output.  In this regard, the early endorsement of our draft report
by both the FTC and Larry Strickling are welcome.

You particularly asked about our technical expertise.  We were fortunate to
have members of the Review Team who understood the technical issues, the
underlying protocol, and the history of the WHOIS.  We also benefited from
regular interaction with SSAC, in particular Patrik F?ltstr?m and Jim
Galvin.  No doubt, if our draft report contains technical errors, they will
continue to guide us with the same patience that they have shown to date.

Finally, on behalf of the WHOIS Review Team I am grateful for your input,
and look forward to exploring all these issues with you and the Board on
our upcoming call and face to face meeting.

Best wishes,

Emily

On 21 January 2012 00:22, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Emily,
>
> Thank you for your note and, more importantly, for all the hard work you
> and your team have put into this effort.  I apologize for the delay in
> responding.  It's not been for lack of interest or attention; in fact, it's
> precisely because this is an important effort that I want to work out with
> you what the next steps need to be.  You've asked for both a telephone
> briefing and a face to face briefing to the Board.  I think these will be
> useful and we should do them, but I want to look both deeper and farther
> ahead.  I want to make sure we ensure that the recommendations are reviewed
> carefully and either accepted or responded to, and for those
> recommendations that are accepted there will be effective implementation.
>  Your report is but the first part of the overall process.
>
> Another aspect that has been on my mind applies to reports in general, not
> just to yours.  Having received reports from many different expert groups
> over the years, I've observed two problems that sometimes occur.  One is
> weaknesses in writing or reasoning within a report, e.g. missing steps
> between factual data and conclusions, assumptions that the reader is more
> familiar with the subject matter, etc.  The other weakness that sometimes
> occurs is an expert group goes beyond its mandate or purview and makes
> recommendations that are outside its scope.  In the past we've been scared
> to push back on reports lest we be seen as influencing the report.  I'd
> like to find a way to include a quality review cycle to address the
> weaknesses I listed but without attempting to influence the judgment or
> recommendations of the expert team.  We haven't yet gotten this built into
> our cycle, so I'm struggling a bit with this.  I had wanted to get a small
> set of people together to read and comment on your report from this
> perspective, but it hasn't happened yet.  So, to avoid having more time
> pass, I'll share my comments with you and we'll move forward.  See below
> for my comments.
>
> Returning to the main point, I think we need to work out what the steps
> will be after you brief the Board.  You have a list of 20 recommendations
> in the last section of the report.  For the sake of argument, let's suppose
> we agreed wholeheartedly with all of these, what should happen next?  Quite
> a lot of work will be required, and perhaps more to the point, quite a lot
> of coordination and buy in from others will be required.  The Board doesn't
> have the power to unilaterally compel the set of changes you're
> recommending.
>
> I've copied Diane and Denise on this note.  Diane can help get a call to
> the Board scheduled and Denise can begin the discussion about next steps.
>  Let's work on these.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
> ==================================================================================================
>
> Crocker's comments on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report (Draft), 5
> December 2011
>
> The report is very good and contains a lot of useful information and, of
> course, twenty recommendations worthy of careful consideration.  The
> following comments are focused on specific weaknesses and are not a
> criticism of the overall report.  They are intended to improve the accuracy
> and readability of the report not to argue with the facts or
> recommendations.
>
> Chapter 1, section A: I believe the original purpose of whois was to
> provide points of contact for the hosts that were on the network.  In the
> early days, hosts were multi-user machines, and their administrators were
> roughly comparable to the operators of small ISPs.  These were not points
> of contact for each individual.  The whois system morphed over time, but
> the formal definition and the protocols supporting it didn't change except
> to become more distributed in order to scale.
>
> Chapter 1, section B: "It is likely that it was selected for use in this
> context because it existed and was well understood.  In all probability, it
> was selected by default."  (1) It would be easy to check the facts.  Almost
> all of the relevant people are still available.  (2) What's the relevance
> of this statement?  This in contrast with what?
>
> Chapter 1, section C: "ICANN has adopted the age-old tradition of 'the
> study' in lieu of or [as] a precursor to action."  This seems pejorative to
> me.
>
> Chapter 1, section D: "Rather, it is an attempt to concisely present in a
> balanced and fair manner the very real truth  that the current system is
> broken and needs to be repaired."  While I don't disagree, I don't think
> the report has presented a proper foundation.  The whois system is intended
> to provide contact information for a purpose, or perhaps or multiple
> purposes.  The accuracy of that information is an important part of the
> story, but it's not the whole story.  What needs are not being met?  I
> think it's important to lay out the purposes of this information and how
> those purposes are not being met.  With that in hand I think it will be a
> lot more clear what it means to say the current system is broken and it
> will also be much clearer how to fix it.  To give a specific, concrete
> example, why is a proxy registration harmful?  Suppose the proxy service
> promptly and reliably passes on all message directed to the technical,
> administrative and/or owner points of contact.  Under what circumstances
> would that be insufficient?  I believe it depends on the purpose you have
> in mind for contacting the registrant.  If you have in mind telling him you
> think the domain name or the content on his web site is infringing on
> someone else's intellectual property and that if he doesn't respond the
> domain name will be removed from service, do you actually need the
> registrant's true name?  On the other hand, if the registrant's web site
> contains child pornography, then you may well need to find the person
> physically so you arrest him.  Even in this case, a proxy may be sufficient
> if it's possible for appropriate law enforcement personnel to reach the
> actual registrant via the proxy.
>
> I'm not trying to argue for one outcome or another.  My point here is that
> the purpose(s) of whois are not laid out clearly enough and hence it's not
> clear exactly what it means to say it's broken and hence even less clear
> how to fix it.
>
> This lack of clarity is repeated throughout the report, and I think the
> report would be considerably stronger and more helpful if this were fleshed
> out.
>
> Chapter 1, section G, recommendation 5.  This recommendation calls for
> "reducing the number of unreachable WHOIS registrations ... by 50% within
> 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months."  What is the
> number of unreachable whois registrations now?
>
> Recommendation 17: "Thin registry" is mentioned but not yet defined.
>
> Chapter 2, section A: The list of people on the WHOIS Review Team is
> impressive, but I didn't see very many people who were likely to supply the
> technical depth and understanding of the history that you would have
> needed.  Were there outside advisers?
>
> Chapter 3, section A: "There are now over 900 gTLD Registrars..." This is
> accurate in a very narrow sense.  It would be a service to the reader to
> include a much better picture.  First, the very large majority of these 900
> registrars are shell companies that exist solely to provide threads to be
> used in the drop-catch process.  They're not particularly relevant to the
> whois issue.  Further, another largish clump of registrars are run by
> domainers.  The names registered through them are not active on the net in
> ways that are relevant to this report.  (Or, perhaps they are relevant, but
> only for a specific purpose such as determining who's holding a name that
> infringes on a trademark.)  Yet further, even among the remaining
> registrars, there are important distinctions and segments.  Just a few,
> starting with GoDaddy, are very large.  The top several account for the
> vast majority of the registrations.  Meanwhile, the resellers drastically
> change the numbers in the opposite direction and also play a prominent role
> in any analysis of what the problems are.  It would be useful if this
> report included a good description of what the registrar and reseller
> landscape actually looks like.
>
> Chapter 3, section B: "Modern WHOIS Policy is buried in the contracts of
> the current Registry and Registrar Agreements."  What was WHOIS and WHOIS
> policy prior to ICANN?
>
> "As discussed above, the .COM and .ORG Registries, both run by
> VeriSign..."  I think you meant NET, not ORG.  (Also, Verisign no longer
> uses camel case.)
>
> Chapter 4, section D: What constitutes "wholly accurate"?  What impact
> does this inaccuracy have?  (These questions are a continuation of the
> primary question asked above about the purpose of the whois data.)
>
> "Just as there is no shared understanding or statement of the purpose of
> WHOIS..."  To me, this is the key.  It seems to me important to put the
> purpose of WHOIS squarely on the table and deal with the multiple purposes
> and multiple understandings of what the problems are.
>
> Chapter 5, "the issue of non-Latin scripts" -- What is the issue?
>
> "ad hoc solutions" might be interpreted as a pejorative term
>
> "the community needs to urgently address the following issues:
>
> 1. What data is needed from the registrant,
>
> 2. How this data will be represented in the data model, and
>
> 3. How this data will be accessed through registration data services."
>
> I don't think this is sufficient.  I'd add:
>
> 4. By whom?
>
> 5. For what purpose?
>
> This last question controls the accuracy question, i.e. is the data
> accurate enough for the purpose?
>
> "... a consistent policy across ccTLDs and gTLDs would make it much easier
> for consumers and law enforcement to use WHOIS data."  Yes, but the
> diversity also provides a richer set of practices to study and learn from.
>
> Chapter 6, "... effective in meeting the needs of law enforcement and
> promoting consumer trust."  These phrases should be expanded and explicated.
>
> Chapter 6, section A: "Having a failsafe avenue to contact
> administrators..."  What is the difference between inaccurate information
> and an unresponsive registrant?
>
> "Even this is not a significant concern for many registrants when only a
> small proportion of domain names lead to web sites that the registrant has
> a vested interest in maintaining uninterrupted access."  So why does
> accuracy matter?
>
> Chapter 6, section B, "knock on effects" -- What does this term mean?
>
> Chapter 6, section B, "lack of due diligence" -- What does this mean here?
>  This seems like a different matter
>
> "Another issue identified by the review team relates to the ability of
> consumers to access  WHOIS data. ... over 80% of consumers are unaware of
> WHOIS..." -- This is an entirely different issue and it should be put in a
> different part of the report.  This is perhaps a really good example of one
> of the many distinct "purposes."
>
> "... the Intellectual Property Constituency argued that:
>
> ICANN is subject to a commitment 'to having accurate and complete WHOIS'
> ... ICANN is not required to implement national safeguards for individuals'
> privacy..." -- This statement seems fatuous or perhaps disingenuous and
> hence puts the Intellectual Property Constituency in an unnecessarily bad
> light.  Is this a fair presentation of their position?
>
> "Comparison with ccTLD Practices" -- This section is very good.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 4:43 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:
>
> Hi Steve
>
> And a very Happy New Year to you and your family.  I'm sure this year will
> be a challenging one for ICANN, but if I may say so, I think that your
> recent statements as Chairman have done much to calm the waters.
>
> I'm writing as Chair of the WHOIS Review Team, to explain the reasons why
> we have requested some time with the Board to discuss our draft report.
>
> The draft was published in December 2010, and is currently out for public
> comment.  We will be holding a public forum in Costa Rica.
>
> You may recall that the WHOIS Review Team was formed under the Affirmation
> of Commitments.  Its membership was selected by Rod and Heather, and it was
> formally constituted in late 2010.  We held our first formal face to face
> meeting in January 2011.  We published our report in early December, with
> 20 recommendations that we hope the Board will adopt. Our plan is to
> finalise the report following Costa Rica, to be published in April.
>
> As you may be aware, the draft report and recommendations have been
> referred to with approval by both the Federal Trade Commission and in Larry
> Strickling's most recent letter to ICANN.
>
> During the course of 2011, the Review Team undertook extensive outreach
> within the ICANN Community.  We met with the GAC, various GNSO
> constituencies including the Registries, Registrars, IPC, BC, and NCUC,
> also with ALAC, and ccNSO.   We also invited both signatories of the
> Affirmation of Commitments to give us an early briefing, so that we could
> better understand each party's objectives in calling for a review of
> WHOIS.  We had a very helpful briefing with Larry Strickling, but
> unfortunately it was not possible for ICANN's Chief Executive to find the
> time.  However, I would say that the ICANN staff were generous with their
> time, open and professional throughout the Review.
>
> I made a number of requests to Peter for us to meet with the Board during
> 2011, to give a progress report and seek the Board's input.  Unfortunately,
> due to other demands on the Board's time, it proved impossible to schedule
> any time together.
>
> Denise and I discussed the idea of doing a phone briefing with the Board.
> I believe that by having this contact in good time prior to the Costa Rica
> meeting, we will all be giving ourselves the best chances of success by:
>
>
>    - Guiding the Board through the salient points in the report, and
>    introducing the recommendations
>    - Hearing any concerns or comments that you may have early in the
>    public comment process, so that the Review Team has time to consider them
>    prior to Costa Rica
>    - We are conscious that we have had no communication at Board level
>    with ICANN, one of the signatories of the AoC, throughout our review, and
>    believe that it would be appropriate to have some dialogue before our work
>    is finalised, especially as our recommendations are directed at the Board.
>
>
> I would also be happy to have a short phone call 1:1 with you, in order to
> provide an informal briefing, and discuss the most effective way of
> introducing the report to the Board.
>
>
> With best wishes,
>
>
> Emily Taylor
> Chair,
> WHOIS Review Team
> --
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
>
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
> emily at emilytaylor.eu
>
> *www.etlaw.co.uk*
>
> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
> Wales No. 7630471. 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120122/31457a06/attachment.html 

From steve at shinkuro.com  Sun Jan 22 19:19:01 2012
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:19:01 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review Team - briefing
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFsec2JMu-Q4G-UWKT66yP+D70GcD7gUGcbw_+TbLap2HXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKWYFsdQ=aFXhd9A13eqV5_6qwgUaECbyC1x5WEfTCBwsBh5Rw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BA304F74-2AC2-4832-9924-C248E56FA001@shinkuro.com>
	<CAKWYFsec2JMu-Q4G-UWKT66yP+D70GcD7gUGcbw_+TbLap2HXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9434495D-B869-4907-9A97-08190ECE6EF7@shinkuro.com>


On Jan 22, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Emily Taylor wrote:

> Dear Steve
> 
> Thank you for your recent mail, and for your detailed comments on the draft report of the WHOIS Review Team.
> 
> I will forward your substantive comments on the draft report for publication, and have cc'd the Review Team so that they have an early view of them. Your input will receive careful consideration along with the other public comments.  I will not respond to those substantive comments here, but look forward to discussing them with you as part of our future engagement with the Board. You will note that the Review Team has specifically asked for feedback on who should be tasked with the recommendations, timeframes and priorities.

Two points:

1. I did not consider my comments to be substantive comments in the sense of agreeing or disagreeing with the facts or conclusions, though I understand each of us may draw these lines in different places.  Rather, I was commenting on the quality, i.e. clarity, completeness, etc., of the report.  I have some thoughts on the substance of the report too, but I didn't think it was appropriate for me to insert them into the conversation at this point.

2. I apologize for not clearly understanding you were requesting feedback on whom should be tasked with the recommendations, timeframes and priorities.  That will take a bit of work.  I'll get that organized.  


> I will respond here to the points that you raise about process.  You are right to focus on it, as it seems to me that the Board has not yet absorbed the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews into its psyche or planning processes.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  We take the AoC reviews very seriously.

> I share your view that it is appropriate to take stock at this stage.
> 
> You raise concerns about the quality of the AoC Reviews

Apologies if there was a lack of clarity of my part.  My concern about the quality of reports is not specific to AoC Reviews.  I've been concerned about this for much longer.  We get reports from many different groups, and I've developed my concern about quality after seeing quite few reports that were unclear, incomplete or otherwise not as good as we should expect.

> , and seem to suggest that the Board has a role to play in quality control. I respectfully disagree.  From my perspective, the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews provide an important accountability mechanism for ICANN as an organisation, community and Board.  The fact that they are scheduled to be repeated at regular intervals strengthens their role in evaluating ICANN's performance over time in key areas.  In that context, the Board has a role (through the CEO) as co-selector of the Review Team members, providing input into the Reviews as an interested stakeholder, and overseeing the implementation of the recommendations.
> 
> It is vital for the credibility of the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews that the Board is not involved in the final editing of the report beyond providing input with other stakeholders, in an open and transparent manner.  These are independent reviews, conducted on behalf of the signatories of the Affirmation of Commitments in the public interest.  They are not Board outputs.  If the Board decides that the quality of the individuals on a Review Team is sub-standard (as your reply seems to indicate is your view), or disagrees with the findings or recommendations, or finds the quality of the report itself to be poor, these are issues for the Board to raise in the appropriate manner.  In my view, the most effective way of doing so would have been for the Board to engage with the Review Team throughout the process, as others within the ICANN community have done.
> 
> If I have misunderstood your intent in this regard, please let me know.

We're in agreement that the Board should not be involved in editing.  We absolutely don't want to apply any pressure with respect to the content or judgment embodied in the report.  Equally, we don't have the time or resources to do detailed editing or provide detailed feedback with respect to the quality of reports.  But somehow there needs to be some feedback and review of the quality of reports.

With respect to raising these issues during the process, until the draft report was available, I'm not sure how we could have commented on the quality of the report.

> 
> With these points in mind, a possible approach might be for the Board to arrange orientation/training /brainstorming sessions to identify the role of the Board with respect to the Reviews, and appropriate mechanisms for the Board to participate in and respond to them. The former chairs of Review Teams could be involved, as could the NTIA (as the other signatory of the AoC) or the GAC (as the NTIA's proxy).

I'll be happy to facilitate this.

> 
> As for selection of the Review Team members, any issues you have with the quality of the individuals or distribution of skill-sets you should raise with your CEO and the Chair of the GAC, who selected us.  I would say, having had the privilege to lead the WHOIS Review Team over the past year, that the individuals are of the highest competence, and showed a readiness both to argue their own corner, and to subsume personal or professional interests to the public interest in completing our task.  As volunteers, they also gave generously of their time in an effort to create a timely and quality output.  In this regard, the early endorsement of our draft report by both the FTC and Larry Strickling are welcome.

I take no issue with the volunteers who participated on the team.

> You particularly asked about our technical expertise.  We were fortunate to have members of the Review Team who understood the technical issues, the underlying protocol, and the history of the WHOIS.  We also benefited from regular interaction with SSAC, in particular Patrik F?ltstr?m and Jim Galvin.  No doubt, if our draft report contains  technical errors, they will continue to guide us with the same patience that they have shown to date. 

I think you're referring to my comment that one part of the report seemed light on the history of whois, which caused me to look at the list of people on the team and realize how few were technical to note the absence of people either on the team or referred to in the report who had lived through the more than forty year development of the whois service.

I don't think this is of the greatest importance since we can look at how whois operates today and work from where we are, but I would have hoped that people new to the whois debates would be able to turn to this report to get a good perspective based on the history and development of issues related to whois.

> Finally, on behalf of the WHOIS Review Team I am grateful for your input, and look forward to exploring all these issues with you and the Board on our upcoming call and face to face meeting.

Thanks,

Steve

> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Emily
> 
> On 21 January 2012 00:22, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> Emily,
> 
> Thank you for your note and, more importantly, for all the hard work you and your team have put into this effort.  I apologize for the delay in responding.  It's not been for lack of interest or attention; in fact, it's precisely because this is an important effort that I want to work out with you what the next steps need to be.  You've asked for both a telephone briefing and a face to face briefing to the Board.  I think these will be useful and we should do them, but I want to look both deeper and farther ahead.  I want to make sure we ensure that the recommendations are reviewed carefully and either accepted or responded to, and for those recommendations that are accepted there will be effective implementation.  Your report is but the first part of the overall process.
> 
> Another aspect that has been on my mind applies to reports in general, not just to yours.  Having received reports from many different expert groups over the years, I've observed two problems that sometimes occur.  One is weaknesses in writing or reasoning within a report, e.g. missing steps between factual data and conclusions, assumptions that the reader is more familiar with the subject matter, etc.  The other weakness that sometimes occurs is an expert group goes beyond its mandate or purview and makes recommendations that are outside its scope.  In the past we've been scared to push back on reports lest we be seen as influencing the report.  I'd like to find a way to include a quality review cycle to address the weaknesses I listed but without attempting to influence the judgment or recommendations of the expert team.  We haven't yet gotten this built into our cycle, so I'm struggling a bit with this.  I had wanted to get a small set of people together to read and comment on your report from this perspective, but it hasn't happened yet.  So, to avoid having more time pass, I'll share my comments with you and we'll move forward.  See below for my comments.
> 
> Returning to the main point, I think we need to work out what the steps will be after you brief the Board.  You have a list of 20 recommendations in the last section of the report.  For the sake of argument, let's suppose we agreed wholeheartedly with all of these, what should happen next?  Quite a lot of work will be required, and perhaps more to the point, quite a lot of coordination and buy in from others will be required.  The Board doesn't have the power to unilaterally compel the set of changes you're recommending.
> 
> I've copied Diane and Denise on this note.  Diane can help get a call to the Board scheduled and Denise can begin the discussion about next steps.  Let's work on these.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
> 
> ==================================================================================================
> 
> Crocker's comments on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report (Draft), 5 December 2011
> 
> The report is very good and contains a lot of useful information and, of course, twenty recommendations worthy of careful consideration.  The following comments are focused on specific weaknesses and are not a criticism of the overall report.  They are intended to improve the accuracy and readability of the report not to argue with the facts or recommendations.
> 
> Chapter 1, section A: I believe the original purpose of whois was to provide points of contact for the hosts that were on the network.  In the early days, hosts were multi-user machines, and their administrators were roughly comparable to the operators of small ISPs.  These were not points of contact for each individual.  The whois system morphed over time, but the formal definition and the protocols supporting it didn't change except to become more distributed in order to scale.
> 
> Chapter 1, section B: "It is likely that it was selected for use in this context because it existed and was well understood.  In all probability, it was selected by default."  (1) It would be easy to check the facts.  Almost all of the relevant people are still available.  (2) What's the relevance of this statement?  This in contrast with what?
> 
> Chapter 1, section C: "ICANN has adopted the age-old tradition of 'the study' in lieu of or [as] a precursor to action."  This seems pejorative to me.
> 
> Chapter 1, section D: "Rather, it is an attempt to concisely present in a balanced and fair manner the very real truth  that the current system is broken and needs to be repaired."  While I don't disagree, I don't think the report has presented a proper foundation.  The whois system is intended to provide contact information for a purpose, or perhaps or multiple purposes.  The accuracy of that information is an important part of the story, but it's not the whole story.  What needs are not being met?  I think it's important to lay out the purposes of this information and how those purposes are not being met.  With that in hand I think it will be a lot more clear what it means to say the current system is broken and it will also be much clearer how to fix it.  To give a specific, concrete example, why is a proxy registration harmful?  Suppose the proxy service promptly and reliably passes on all message directed to the technical, administrative and/or owner points of contact.  Under what circumstances would that be insufficient?  I believe it depends on the purpose you have in mind for contacting the registrant.  If you have in mind telling him you think the domain name or the content on his web site is infringing on someone else's intellectual property and that if he doesn't respond the domain name will be removed from service, do you actually need the registrant's true name?  On the other hand, if the registrant's web site contains child pornography, then you may well need to find the person physically so you arrest him.  Even in this case, a proxy may be sufficient if it's possible for appropriate law enforcement personnel to reach the actual registrant via the proxy.
> 
> I'm not trying to argue for one outcome or another.  My point here is that the purpose(s) of whois are not laid out clearly enough and hence it's not clear exactly what it means to say it's broken and hence even less clear how to fix it.
> 
> This lack of clarity is repeated throughout the report, and I think the report would be considerably stronger and more helpful if this were fleshed out.
> 
> Chapter 1, section G, recommendation 5.  This recommendation calls for "reducing the number of unreachable WHOIS registrations ... by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months."  What is the number of unreachable whois registrations now?
> 
> Recommendation 17: "Thin registry" is mentioned but not yet defined.
> 
> Chapter 2, section A: The list of people on the WHOIS Review Team is impressive, but I didn't see very many people who were likely to supply the technical depth and understanding of the history that you would have needed.  Were there outside advisers?
> 
> Chapter 3, section A: "There are now over 900 gTLD Registrars..." This is accurate in a very narrow sense.  It would be a service to the reader to include a much better picture.  First, the very large majority of these 900 registrars are shell companies that exist solely to provide threads to be used in the drop-catch process.  They're not particularly relevant to the whois issue.  Further, another largish clump of registrars are run by domainers.  The names registered through them are not active on the net in ways that are relevant to this report.  (Or, perhaps they are relevant, but only for a specific purpose such as determining who's holding a name that infringes on a trademark.)  Yet further, even among the remaining registrars, there are important distinctions and segments.  Just a few, starting with GoDaddy, are very large.  The top several account for the vast majority of the registrations.  Meanwhile, the resellers drastically change the numbers in the opposite direction and also play a prominent role in any analysis of what the problems are.  It would be useful if this report included a good description of what the registrar and reseller landscape actually looks like.
> 
> Chapter 3, section B: "Modern WHOIS Policy is buried in the contracts of the current Registry and Registrar Agreements."  What was WHOIS and WHOIS policy prior to ICANN?
> 
> "As discussed above, the .COM and .ORG Registries, both run by VeriSign..."  I think you meant NET, not ORG.  (Also, Verisign no longer uses camel case.)
> 
> Chapter 4, section D: What constitutes "wholly accurate"?  What impact does this inaccuracy have?  (These questions are a continuation of the primary question asked above about the purpose of the whois data.)
> 
> "Just as there is no shared understanding or statement of the purpose of WHOIS..."  To me, this is the key.  It seems to me important to put the purpose of WHOIS squarely on the table and deal with the multiple purposes and multiple understandings of what the problems are.
> 
> Chapter 5, "the issue of non-Latin scripts" -- What is the issue?
> 
> "ad hoc solutions" might be interpreted as a pejorative term
> 
> "the community needs to urgently address the following issues:
> 
> 	1. What data is needed from the registrant,
> 
> 	2. How this data will be represented in the data model, and
> 
> 	3. How this data will be accessed through registration data services."
> 
> I don't think this is sufficient.  I'd add:
> 
> 	4. By whom?
> 
> 	5. For what purpose?
> 
> This last question controls the accuracy question, i.e. is the data accurate enough for the purpose?
> 
> "... a consistent policy across ccTLDs and gTLDs would make it much easier for consumers and law enforcement to use WHOIS data."  Yes, but the diversity also provides a richer set of practices to study and learn from.
> 
> Chapter 6, "... effective in meeting the needs of law enforcement and promoting consumer trust."  These phrases should be expanded and explicated.
> 
> Chapter 6, section A: "Having a failsafe avenue to contact administrators..."  What is the difference between inaccurate information and an unresponsive registrant?
> 
> "Even this is not a significant concern for many registrants when only a small proportion of domain names lead to web sites that the registrant has a vested interest in maintaining uninterrupted access."  So why does accuracy matter?
> 
> Chapter 6, section B, "knock on effects" -- What does this term mean?
> 
> Chapter 6, section B, "lack of due diligence" -- What does this mean here?  This seems like a different matter
> 
> "Another issue identified by the review team relates to the ability of consumers to access  WHOIS data. ... over 80% of consumers are unaware of WHOIS..." -- This is an entirely different issue and it should be put in a different part of the report.  This is perhaps a really good example of one of the many distinct "purposes."
> 
> "... the Intellectual Property Constituency argued that:
> 
> 	ICANN is subject to a commitment 'to having accurate and complete WHOIS' ... ICANN is not required to implement national safeguards for individuals' privacy..." -- This statement seems fatuous or perhaps disingenuous and hence puts the Intellectual Property Constituency in an unnecessarily bad light.  Is this a fair presentation of their position?
> 
> "Comparison with ccTLD Practices" -- This section is very good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 4:43 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:
> 
>> Hi Steve
>> 
>> And a very Happy New Year to you and your family.  I'm sure this year will be a challenging one for ICANN, but if I may say so, I think that your recent statements as Chairman have done much to calm the waters.
>> 
>> I'm writing as Chair of the WHOIS Review Team, to explain the reasons why we have requested some time with the Board to discuss our draft report.
>> 
>> The draft was published in December 2010, and is currently out for public comment.  We will be holding a public forum in Costa Rica.
>> 
>> You may recall that the WHOIS Review Team was formed under the Affirmation of Commitments.  Its membership was selected by Rod and Heather, and it was formally constituted in late 2010.  We held our first formal face to face meeting in January 2011.  We published our report in early December, with 20 recommendations that we hope the Board will adopt. Our plan is to finalise the report following Costa Rica, to be published in April.
>> 
>> As you may be aware, the draft report and recommendations have been referred to with approval by both the Federal Trade Commission and in Larry Strickling's most recent letter to ICANN.
>> 
>> During the course of 2011, the Review Team undertook extensive outreach within the ICANN Community.  We met with the GAC, various GNSO constituencies including the Registries, Registrars, IPC, BC, and NCUC, also with ALAC, and ccNSO.   We also invited both signatories of the Affirmation of Commitments to give us an early briefing, so that we could better understand each party's objectives in calling for a review of WHOIS.  We had a very helpful briefing with Larry Strickling, but unfortunately it was not possible for ICANN's Chief Executive to find the time.  However, I would say that the ICANN staff were generous with their time, open and professional throughout the Review.
>> 
>> I made a number of requests to Peter for us to meet with the Board during 2011, to give a progress report and seek the Board's input.  Unfortunately, due to other demands on the Board's time, it proved impossible to schedule any time together.  
>> 
>> Denise and I discussed the idea of doing a phone briefing with the Board.  I believe that by having this contact in good time prior to the Costa Rica meeting, we will all be giving ourselves the best chances of success by:
>> 
>> Guiding the Board through the salient points in the report, and introducing the recommendations
>> Hearing any concerns or comments that you may have early in the public comment process, so that the Review Team has time to consider them prior to Costa Rica
>> We are conscious that we have had no communication at Board level with ICANN, one of the signatories of the AoC, throughout our review, and believe that it would be appropriate to have some dialogue before our work is finalised, especially as our recommendations are directed at the Board.
>> 
>> I would also be happy to have a short phone call 1:1 with you, in order to provide an informal briefing, and discuss the most effective way of introducing the report to the Board.
>> 
>> 
>> With best wishes,
>> 
>> 
>> Emily Taylor
>> Chair,
>> WHOIS Review Team
>> -- 
>> 
>> 
>>    
>> 
>>                                                                                                                                              
>> 
>> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
>> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
>> emily at emilytaylor.eu 
>> 
>> www.etlaw.co.uk
>> 
>> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120122/8334c728/attachment.html