From alice.jansen at icann.org  Mon Jan 23 09:32:44 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:32:44 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Kind reminder: DOODLE POLL! - Call with GAC
In-Reply-To: <CB3DAC2B.14B60%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CB42E9D8.14D28%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please be kindly reminded to complete the poll by today ? end of your business day
http://www.doodle.com/t8rwryhzxevx8z74

Thanks,

Kind regards

Alice

From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:12:11 -0800
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Subject: DOODLE POLL! - Call with GAC

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/20120123/acf88238/attachment.html 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Mon Jan 23 11:12:51 2012
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:12:51 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review Team - Briefing
Message-ID: <CAKWYFsczWBWjVXi=K9jf8EeO+3FYxN-qmwwnrTuwfuw5d0xN=w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Steve

Thank you for your follow up.

As you say, it's difficult to know how to strike the appropriate balance
between the here and now, and the history.  We were acutely aware that an
entire report could have been done which focused on how we got to where we
are now.  In the end, we felt that as our scope was to look at the extent
to which the current policy and implementation were effective, that we
should allude to the history to the extent necessary, but not make it our
primary focus.  We were fortunate to have members of the WHOIS Review Team
who have lived the history, even if it's only for the past decade or so
(some longer).  I'm sure I speak for the rest of the Review Team in saying,
Steve, that we would value your take on the history of the WHOIS, as one of
the few who have been involved in the Internet's development for the full
40 years. Maybe we could take some time during our call with the Board to
hear from you on this point.

Thank you for confirming that you will organise a response on the mechanics
of the recommendations.  This will be important practical information which
will help in the drafting of the final report.  Thanks also for saying that
you would be open to a more focused session on lessons learned from the AoC
Review processes - perhaps Prague might be the slot for this.

In the meantime, thanks again for your comments and this interaction. All
on the Review Team are looking forward to discussing our draft report - in
form and substance - with you and your Board colleagues.

Kind regards

Emily

On 22 January 2012 19:19, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

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


-- 




*
*

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/20120123/958c656e/attachment.html 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Mon Jan 23 15:27:45 2012
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:27:45 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review Team - Briefing
In-Reply-To: <CB454024-82D6-4E10-9430-CEA246E678CF@shinkuro.com>
References: <CAKWYFsczWBWjVXi=K9jf8EeO+3FYxN-qmwwnrTuwfuw5d0xN=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CB454024-82D6-4E10-9430-CEA246E678CF@shinkuro.com>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFsc4SyKY480ZELUWKKJx450w-hXPw_hs9DKBDo0GPHc3uA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Steve

Thanks for initiating that action.  Look forward to receiving the results
and to our continuing dialogue and engagement with the Board.

Kind regards

Emily




On 23 January 2012 11:25, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Emily,
>
> I've initiated internal action to determine how to deal with each of the
> twenty recommendations.  I wasn't directly involved in the comparable
> process for the ATRT recommendations, so I've reached out to the folks who
> were.  We should have a first cut reasonably quickly.
>
> Having watched the whois debates for most of the ten years I've been
> associated with ICANN, it's always seemed to me that the first step to
> untangling the logjam is to lay out clearly the multiple purposes various
> factions perceive WHOIS is supposed to serve and to organize the dialog
> along multiple dimensions, not just the single dimension of more versus
> less accuracy.  If I recall correctly, when Network Solutions was the
> combined registry and registrar, they required strong proof of identity,
> e.g. drivers license, before registering a domain name.  The accuracy was
> much higher, but so was the cost.  I'm not expressing a preference, but I
> do think the dynamics need to be laid open for a fuller discussion.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 6:12 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:
>
> Dear Steve
>
> Thank you for your follow up.
>
> As you say, it's difficult to know how to strike the appropriate balance
> between the here and now, and the history.  We were acutely aware that an
> entire report could have been done which focused on how we got to where we
> are now.  In the end, we felt that as our scope was to look at the extent
> to which the current policy and implementation were effective, that we
> should allude to the history to the extent necessary, but not make it our
> primary focus.  We were fortunate to have members of the WHOIS Review Team
> who have lived the history, even if it's only for the past decade or so
> (some longer).  I'm sure I speak for the rest of the Review Team in saying,
> Steve, that we would value your take on the history of the WHOIS, as one of
> the few who have been involved in the Internet's development for the full
> 40 years. Maybe we could take some time during our call with the Board to
> hear from you on this point.
>
> Thank you for confirming that you will organise a response on the
> mechanics of the recommendations.  This will be important practical
> information which will help in the drafting of the final report.  Thanks
> also for saying that you would be open to a more focused session on lessons
> learned from the AoC Review processes - perhaps Prague might be the slot
> for this.
>
> In the meantime, thanks again for your comments and this interaction. All
> on the Review Team are looking forward to discussing our draft report - in
> form and substance - with you and your Board colleagues.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
> On 22 January 2012 19:19, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
>
> 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/20120123/83487da8/attachment.html 

From steve at shinkuro.com  Mon Jan 23 11:25:04 2012
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:25:04 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review Team - Briefing
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFsczWBWjVXi=K9jf8EeO+3FYxN-qmwwnrTuwfuw5d0xN=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKWYFsczWBWjVXi=K9jf8EeO+3FYxN-qmwwnrTuwfuw5d0xN=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CB454024-82D6-4E10-9430-CEA246E678CF@shinkuro.com>

Emily,

I've initiated internal action to determine how to deal with each of the twenty recommendations.  I wasn't directly involved in the comparable process for the ATRT recommendations, so I've reached out to the folks who were.  We should have a first cut reasonably quickly.

Having watched the whois debates for most of the ten years I've been associated with ICANN, it's always seemed to me that the first step to untangling the logjam is to lay out clearly the multiple purposes various factions perceive WHOIS is supposed to serve and to organize the dialog along multiple dimensions, not just the single dimension of more versus less accuracy.  If I recall correctly, when Network Solutions was the combined registry and registrar, they required strong proof of identity, e.g. drivers license, before registering a domain name.  The accuracy was much higher, but so was the cost.  I'm not expressing a preference, but I do think the dynamics need to be laid open for a fuller discussion.

Steve



On Jan 23, 2012, at 6:12 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:

> Dear Steve
> 
> Thank you for your follow up. 
> 
> As you say, it's difficult to know how to strike the appropriate balance between the here and now, and the history.  We were acutely aware that an entire report could have been done which focused on how we got to where we are now.  In the end, we felt that as our scope was to look at the extent to which the current policy and implementation were effective, that we should allude to the history to the extent necessary, but not make it our primary focus.  We were fortunate to have members of the WHOIS Review Team who have lived the history, even if it's only for the past decade or so (some longer).  I'm sure I speak for the rest of the Review Team in saying, Steve, that we would value your take on the history of the WHOIS, as one of the few who have been involved in the Internet's development for the full 40 years. Maybe we could take some time during our call with the Board to hear from you on this point.
> 
> Thank you for confirming that you will organise a response on the mechanics of the recommendations.  This will be important practical information which will help in the drafting of the final report.  Thanks also for saying that you would be open to a more focused session on lessons learned from the AoC Review processes - perhaps Prague might be the slot for this. 
> 
> In the meantime, thanks again for your comments and this interaction. All on the Review Team are looking forward to discussing our draft report - in form and substance - with you and your Board colleagues.  
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Emily
> 
> On 22 January 2012 19:19, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
>    
> 
>                                                                                                                                              
> 
> 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/20120123/90a3a2e0/attachment.html 

From steve at shinkuro.com  Mon Jan 23 15:31:14 2012
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:31:14 -0500
Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review Team - Briefing
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFsc4SyKY480ZELUWKKJx450w-hXPw_hs9DKBDo0GPHc3uA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKWYFsczWBWjVXi=K9jf8EeO+3FYxN-qmwwnrTuwfuw5d0xN=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CB454024-82D6-4E10-9430-CEA246E678CF@shinkuro.com>
	<CAKWYFsc4SyKY480ZELUWKKJx450w-hXPw_hs9DKBDo0GPHc3uA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <401DA591-9005-4CB4-A113-9CD52DF2DDBA@shinkuro.com>

Emily,

Good.  Please understand we are solidly behind this effort and want to make it successful.

As part of the effort to make this successful, I'm going to try to get the Board prepared in advance so they are fully engaged and ready to listen.  I also hope we can prepare questions for you ahead of time and share them with you.  I want to do more than have a basic briefing and use at least some of the time to explore next steps, issues, etc.

Steve

On Jan 23, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:

> Dear Steve
> 
> Thanks for initiating that action.  Look forward to receiving the results and to our continuing dialogue and engagement with the Board.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Emily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 January 2012 11:25, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> Emily,
> 
> I've initiated internal action to determine how to deal with each of the twenty recommendations.  I wasn't directly involved in the comparable process for the ATRT recommendations, so I've reached out to the folks who were.  We should have a first cut reasonably quickly.
> 
> Having watched the whois debates for most of the ten years I've been associated with ICANN, it's always seemed to me that the first step to untangling the logjam is to lay out clearly the multiple purposes various factions perceive WHOIS is supposed to serve and to organize the dialog along multiple dimensions, not just the single dimension of more versus less accuracy.  If I recall correctly, when Network Solutions was the combined registry and registrar, they required strong proof of identity, e.g. drivers license, before registering a domain name.  The accuracy was much higher, but so was the cost.  I'm not expressing a preference, but I do think the dynamics need to be laid open for a fuller discussion.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 6:12 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:
> 
>> Dear Steve
>> 
>> Thank you for your follow up. 
>> 
>> As you say, it's difficult to know how to strike the appropriate balance between the here and now, and the history.  We were acutely aware that an entire report could have been done which focused on how we got to where we are now.  In the end, we felt that as our scope was to look at the extent to which the current policy and implementation were effective, that we should allude to the history to the extent necessary, but not make it our primary focus.  We were fortunate to have members of the WHOIS Review Team who have lived the history, even if it's only for the past decade or so (some longer).  I'm sure I speak for the rest of the Review Team in saying, Steve, that we would value your take on the history of the WHOIS, as one of the few who have been involved in the Internet's development for the full 40 years. Maybe we could take some time during our call with the Board to hear from you on this point.
>> 
>> Thank you for confirming that you will organise a response on the mechanics of the recommendations.  This will be important practical information which will help in the drafting of the final report.  Thanks also for saying that you would be open to a more focused session on lessons learned from the AoC Review processes - perhaps Prague might be the slot for this. 
>> 
>> In the meantime, thanks again for your comments and this interaction. All on the Review Team are looking forward to discussing our draft report - in form and substance - with you and your Board colleagues.  
>> 
>> Kind regards
>> 
>> Emily
>> 
>> On 22 January 2012 19:19, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 
>>    
>> 
>>                                                                                                                                              
>> 
>> 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/20120123/9311db1f/attachment.html 

From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Mon Jan 23 23:02:44 2012
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:02:44 -0200
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: [lac-discuss-en] .CAT WHOIS Change Request
In-Reply-To: <CAOZQb9TL48NU3rSeX_YS5=o6GFJxUsuzWOavP2sKzsD-jyGg6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOZQb9TL48NU3rSeX_YS5=o6GFJxUsuzWOavP2sKzsD-jyGg6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD48TT__gOjs-bch2cQnL2Mc+M-Jprw6Nqz=WG3fw0xHEWY=fA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear RT, FYI.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Date: 2012/1/23
Subject: [lac-discuss-en] .CAT WHOIS Change Request
To: "<whois-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>" <whois-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Cc: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org


Dear Colleagues:
Please see the announcement here:

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm

Apropos, I am developing the Draft for the ALAC response to the WHOIS RT
Report. ?My draft seeks to layout a framework for the At-Large principle
?regarding claims of privacy and our position on proxy registrations that we
should adopt. In general, I do believe there is convergence between the
principle I espouse and extant case.

In the virtual world defined by the DNS, we accept that each of us is
connected to all of us. ?And while there is a time-honoured tradition that
parties to a contract may choose the legal jurisdiction to which they will
submit for binding claims and judgments, we hardly think it useful in such
?a 'one-to-many' relationship for a claim of suzerainty of any particular
national law or, set of laws.

The At-Large is properly mindful of claims to privacy for one or other
purpose and should seek every accommodation for such claims, so long as
these do not degrade the ability of any user to effectively seek redress of
grievance. ?In my view, the Internet as 'commons' is, of right, good public
policy. ?And as such, anonymity of the pamphleteer is an enduring
objective. ? This aside, we hold that redress begins with knowing who is
liable and, where to find them, all relevant protocols observed.

In this context, we should care less whether privacy rights or claims are
connected to a natural person or a corporation. As odious to the senses for
some as it may be, it is largely settled that corporations are personified
in the law; U.S. jurisprudence of over 100 years seems to have greatly
influenced the laws of many nations in this regard.

Not sensible to fight that fight all over again.

To my mind, the defining matter/ issue inre the proxy relationship is an
acceptance of a variant on agency rules. And here I'm relying on expression
of the common law. ?Plus, seeing as the WHOIS requirements are enshrined in
the RAA, the law of torts. Every proxy relationship that propose a privacy
registration must accept that a) the proxy provider acts on expressed
actual authority of the registrant b) the proxy provider accepts strict
liability for the registrant on whose behalf it acts.

The Draft Statement should be available by cob Friday, 27th Jan.

- Carlton Samuels

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en



From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Jan 24 15:07:59 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:07:59 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Costa Rica - When do you arrive?
Message-ID: <CB4487DF.15082%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

With a view to finalizing the schedule for Costa Rica, we would be very grateful if you could please provide us with your arrival dates as soon as possible.
To complete this, please go to your private wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/ICANN+Meeting+-+Costa+Rica
Be kindly reminded that login details are needed to access this page.

Many thanks in advance for your cooperation.

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/20120124/47899169/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Fri Jan 27 09:14:14 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:14:14 -0800
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions to the Whois review Team
In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECFA83@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CB48281A.153AA%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Attached you will find the GNSO Council's questions which follow on from the webinar held on 19 January 2012. Please refer to the GNSO secretariat's note (see below) for more information.
Thank you,

Kind regards

Alice
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:49:43 -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: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster at icann.org<mailto:liz.gasster at icann.org>>, St?phane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>>, "KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>, Glen <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org<mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>
Subject: Question to the Whois review Team


Dear Alice and Olof,

On behalf of the GNSO Chair, attached please find a set of questions that the Council would like to submit to the Whois Review Team following on from the presentation to the Council at its meeting on 19 January 2012 . Each recommendation relating to the question has been noted  in full to make it easier to follow.  Councillors comments are noted at the end of the  questions.

Thank you very much.
Kind regards,

Glen

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120127/303e9d2a/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WHOIS Questions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35328 bytes
Desc: WHOIS Questions.doc
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120127/303e9d2a/WHOISQuestions.doc 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Fri Jan 27 09:28:30 2012
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:28:30 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] EU High Level Group
Message-ID: <CAKWYFscOurSvAeuRfi643nE_K1WFawNU6sHpG49ygK8nWU=-5w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi there

I've been invited to give a briefing to the EU High Level Group (basically,
the EU GAC members who attend ICANN meetings), which will take place in
Brussels on 7 February.  The UK government have asked me to give them a
briefing on our draft report's findings, and recommendations, and will
cover my travel expenses in attendance.  The meeting is closed.

I will attend, and give a briefing as requested.  If there's an opportunity
to do slides, I'll give the ones we are developing now.  I will pass on to
the team any comments relating to the draft report afterwards.

Kind regards

Emily

-- 




*
*

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

*www.etlaw.co.uk*

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120127/2ebd56cd/attachment.html 

From lutz at iks-jena.de  Fri Jan 27 17:24:51 2012
From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:24:51 +0100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] FWD: EU Data Protection - Legislative Agenda ...
Message-ID: <20120127172451.GA22526@belenus.iks-jena.de>

----- Forwarded message from Whois-WG @ AtLarge -----

Proposal for a *DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal
data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention,
investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the
execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data*

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_10_en.pdf

* *

Proposal for a *REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL* *on
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal
data and on* *the free movement of such data (General Data Protection
Regulation)*

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf

* *

The EU has finally issued its proposed legislative package for reform of EU
data protection laws and regulations.

This is important to digest since much of the arguments concerning privacy
and WHOIS data usage resonates here and impinges on the global internet
user and the At-Large remit in ICANN.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm

----- End of forwarded message -----