From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Jan 30 12:06:03 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 04:06:03 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft schedule - Costa Rica (San Jose Meeting) Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find enclosed your draft Costa Rica schedule also available at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/San+Jose+Meeting and https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/ICANN+Meeting+-+Costa+Rica (+ Members' dates of arrival). Thanks, Kind regards Alice --- Sunday 13:00-17:30 -- WHOIS Review Team Meeting Description: This is the WHOIS Policy Review Team's working session. Public attendance is welcome but comments should be submitted during the Interaction with the Community Session scheduled for Monday, 12 March, 14:00-15:30 or through its public comment box at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05dec11-en.htm 17:30-18:30 -- WHOIS Review Team ? GNSO Council meeting 19:30-22:00 -- WHOIS Policy Review Team dinner - Location TBD Monday 07:30-09:30 -- WHOIS Review Team Breakfast (in preparation for afternoon public session) - CLOSED 14:00-15:30 -- WHOIS Interaction with the Community Description: Presentation of draft final report recommendations for the community's consideration and feedback. For more information please refer to: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05dec11-en.htm 16:00-17:30 -- WHOIS Internal Debriefing - CLOSED Tuesday 11:00-12:00 -- WHOIS Review Team - GAC meeting Wednesday 08:00-17:00 -- WHOIS Policy Review Team Meeting NOTE FROM CHAIR: Emily needs to leave at 15:00. Will aim to stop the session then but schedule makes allowance for more time, which Kathy will chair, if need be. Description: This is the WHOIS Policy Review Team's working session. Public attendance is welcome but comments should be submitted during the Interaction with the Community Session scheduled for Monday, 12 March, 14:00-15:30 or through its public comment box at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05dec11-en.htm TBD ? WHOIS Review Team-Board meeting -- 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/20120130/dc000bca/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Jan 30 13:55:39 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] We're up on the homepage Message-ID: <4F26A15B.5060100@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, Our report is featured on ICANN's homepage right now, and urges people to submit comments. I certainly appreciate the publicity. www.icann.org. Best, Kathy -- From denise.michel at icann.org Mon Jan 30 16:22:48 2012 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:22:48 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] We're up on the homepage In-Reply-To: <4F26A15B.5060100@kathykleiman.com> References: <4F26A15B.5060100@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: You are welcome. Let's hope it helps generate some constructive community comment. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, > Our report is featured on ICANN's homepage right now, and urges people > to submit comments. I certainly appreciate the publicity. www.icann.org. > > Best, > Kathy > > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120130/c6a0b0af/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Mon Jan 30 16:44:28 2012 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:44:28 -0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] We're up on the homepage In-Reply-To: References: <4F26A15B.5060100@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Dear Kathy, Denise, Agree, but I must point to the lack of translations for a broader participation. Regards from .br, Omar 2012/1/30 Denise Michel : > You are welcome. ?Let's hope it helps generate some constructive community > comment. > > Regards, > Denise > > Denise Michel > ICANN > Advisor to the President & CEO > denise.michel at icann.org > +1.408.429.3072 mobile > +1.310.578.8632 direct > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> Our report is featured on ICANN's homepage right now, and urges people >> to submit comments. I certainly appreciate the publicity. ?www.icann.org. >> >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> -- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Jan 30 16:57:07 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:57:07 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] We're up on the homepage In-Reply-To: References: <4F26A15B.5060100@kathykleiman.com>

Message-ID: <4F26CBE3.8050807@kathykleiman.com> Good point, Omar! Denise, do we have an estimated time for translations? Kathy : > Dear Kathy, Denise, > > Agree, but I must point to the lack of translations for a broader participation. > > Regards from .br, > > Omar > > > > 2012/1/30 Denise Michel: >> You are welcome. Let's hope it helps generate some constructive community >> comment. >> >> Regards, >> Denise >> >> Denise Michel >> ICANN >> Advisor to the President& CEO >> denise.michel at icann.org >> +1.408.429.3072 mobile >> +1.310.578.8632 direct >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Kathy Kleiman >> wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> Our report is featured on ICANN's homepage right now, and urges people >>> to submit comments. I certainly appreciate the publicity. www.icann.org. >>> >>> Best, >>> Kathy >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rt4-whois mailing list >>> Rt4-whois at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> -- From emily at emilytaylor.eu Fri Feb 3 10:41:47 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:41:47 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Happy New Year and a question In-Reply-To: <72FF802C385C35499B6631E943CEFA7202EBCA928D@winxbeuk08.exchange.xchg> References: <72FF802C385C35499B6631E943CEFA7202EBCA928D@winxbeuk08.exchange.xchg> Message-ID: Hi John Thank you for your message, and for reading the WHOIS Review Team's draft report - by my calculations that makes you the second person I've spoken to who's actually read it! You are correct in your guess that I chaired the Team. I looked again at our dramatis personae and see that it does look like I'm claiming to be Chair of the ccNSO, which I'm not. We'll make sure that's a bit clearer in the final version. Thanks for your praise for the draft report. It's nice to get any feedback, and kind words are always welcome. It was a true team effort, and fortunately many people on the team - as well as being vocal about their views (!) - were also willing to roll their sleeves up and get stuck in to the writing. In answer to your direct question: yes. Validation of data is something we considered carefully. You are right in saying that we received a number of inputs requesting validation of data. This was something that the Compliance Team within ICANN told us they would like to see. And yes, we did deliberately not require that. I can only give you my personal understanding of why we didn't require validation on the way in. Partly, I don't think there would have been consensus within the Team for such a recommendation - but I may be wrong. One of the strengths of the Review is that despite being a cross-constituency team we managed to agree on all the recommendations. This will be vital going forward, as the recommendations will need approval by the ICANN Board and then implementation by many parties before they become a reality. Another reason is that validation only works going forward. There is a huge legacy problem (100m .coms alone, not counting .org, .net etc). The real harm we identified was from existing records that are so bad that no one can get hold of the registrant at all. We decided to set a tough target to reduce these 'unreachables' by half in a single year, and half again the following year. Don't get me wrong, personally I think it would be great if records going in were all validated, and our recommendation does not preclude data validation. In any event, rather than providing solutions, our job is to set expectations. I hope that our draft report makes it clear that the expectation of those who rely on WHOIS is for data accuracy to improve. An interesting development which has happened since our draft was published is the ongoing renegotiation of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. That is a closed door process, and I don't know the details. Reading news reports and general online chatter, it appears that data validation may be a requirement in the new RAA. If so, that would be great for the future. What it won't do, as stated above, is anything about the existing records - which are the main problem currently. However, the reason for publishing our draft report is to get feedback. Garlands are lovely, of course, but we also need to hear where our draft has not lived up to expectations. I hope that you will go on to do your blog piece, and submit some comments. I have cc'd the team, so that everyone is aware of this exchange, and can think about the comments you've made. [All - for any of you who don't know John Carr, he is an expert in online child protection, and has worked tirelessly in the UK and internationally on behalf of a coalition of children's charities to raise awareness of the harms caused by online images of child abuse. John's perspective is therefore that of a user of WHOIS. ] Others within the Team may wish to make comments on what you've asked, and may disagree with my version of events. I know from experience they will not hold back if they have any input to make! Thank you for reading the report, for your praise, and your constructive criticism, which are both welcome. Best wishes for 2012, and I hope we see each other again soon. Emily On 3 February 2012 09:41, John Carr wrote: > Hi Emily,**** > > ** ** > > Hope all goes well with you and yours.**** > > ** ** > > I got your message via Sharon and I will make a submission to the > consultation on the WHOIS Review.**** > > ** ** > > I must say I loved reading the document ? it was surgical and devastating > ? no wonder they are looking for a new CEO. It was also beautifully > written. A model of plain English which was easy to understand. I am going > to do a blog about it. **** > > ** ** > > The blog will be garlanded with flowers and praise but I cannot for the > life of me understand why you did not come straight out and say the data > should, correction, must, be validated on the way in. Several important > voices also urged that but you make no specific reference to those voices > in the final recommendations. So that will be a criticism I make and it > will also form the basis of the submission I referred to above.**** > > ** ** > > Given the precision and clarity of the report?s language in every other > respect I find it hard to believe that the distinct lack of it on that > point was an oversight or the product of a failure to grasp or identify the > point. You could have said, for example,**** > > ** ** > > ?Several representations have been made urging that etc???The Review Team > is not unsympathetic to this idea, and as part of an ongoing series of > measures to establish and maintain a higher level of data accuracy it could > play a key part, but we would like to canvass a wider range of views before > finalising our thinking.?**** > > ** ** > > In very many countries around the world it would be a trifling matter to > validate the data on the way in and/or to reconfirm it periodically > subsequently. It can be done in real time, very fast and very cheaply. In > others it would be more difficult and more expensive, but not impossible, > and even if it introduced a short delay while papers were checked or taken > to e.g. a Post Office to be scrutinised, the gains in accuracy and > therefore the gains in consumer confidence, law enforcement and > Governmental confidence would be substantial. It is hard to imagine that a > new Amazon or PayPal would be stillborn because it might have taken as long > as 72 hours to get up and running with a new web site name. Would there be > a drift away from some domains in some countries to others where it was > possible to do everything immediately online? Compared to the net gain is > that a good enough reason for not proceeding?**** > > ** ** > > Anyway, my question is: am I right in thinking you chaired and led the > Review Team? I saw your name listed with ?Chairman? next to it but it then > added that ccNSO reference so I wondered if?? **** > > ** ** > > Regards**** > > ** ** > > John**** > > ** ** > > Check out my blog: http://johnc1912.wordpress.com **** > > Follow me on Twitter: @johnc1912 **** > > ** ** > -- * * 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/20120203/71855eb1/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Fri Feb 3 13:08:18 2012 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:08:18 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Happy New Year and a question Message-ID: <20120203060818.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.1552e80d7f.wbe@email12.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120203/8d9f9fc7/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Fri Feb 3 18:59:05 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:59:05 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 Message-ID: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> Hi Lutz and All, At long last, I want to circle back to the Data Access Recommendation and ask questions that have been banging around in my head for awhile. I wanted to wait awhile until after our marathon editing sessions and the holidays. But first, a huge congratulations to Susan for the Facebook initial public offering. I am so hoping you are one of the hundreds of new millionaires I am hearing about on the news! (No need to tell us... that's private data :-) ) Here are my questions to Lutz and all advocating the Data Access recommendation (in its two versions) now in our report and listed below. As I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and all gTLD registries in the other): 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the information going to be gathered into and run out of a California database run and owned by ICANN? 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to the registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search for all gTLD whois data? If so, could there be a scalability problem if all people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website for all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site go down? 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups within ICANN? Report section below. Thanks so much for any and everyone's answers to the questions above -- addressed to Lutz as the founder of this recommendation. All the best, Kathy p.s. Data Access recommendation: "Data Access ? Common Interface 17. To improve access to the Whois data of .COM and .NET gTLDs, the only remaining Thin Registries, ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick WHOIS data for them. ALTERNATIVE for public comment: To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to allow "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information". Such interface should provide thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names." -- From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Feb 3 20:33:10 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 20:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Happy New Year and a question In-Reply-To: References: <72FF802C385C35499B6631E943CEFA7202EBCA928D@winxbeuk08.exchange.xchg>, Message-ID: John, Emily's recollection aligns with mine. Validation was discussed and it was clear we would not reach consensus. Emily is also correct in pointing out that we are not shy. Thanks for the review of the report. It's been out for some time now with little evidence that it has been read. Your note lets us know that someone is paying attention, is asking meaningful questions, and appreciates the work we did. Thank you. Bill On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:43 AM, "Emily Taylor" > wrote: Hi John Thank you for your message, and for reading the WHOIS Review Team's draft report - by my calculations that makes you the second person I've spoken to who's actually read it! You are correct in your guess that I chaired the Team. I looked again at our dramatis personae and see that it does look like I'm claiming to be Chair of the ccNSO, which I'm not. We'll make sure that's a bit clearer in the final version. Thanks for your praise for the draft report. It's nice to get any feedback, and kind words are always welcome. It was a true team effort, and fortunately many people on the team - as well as being vocal about their views (!) - were also willing to roll their sleeves up and get stuck in to the writing. In answer to your direct question: yes. Validation of data is something we considered carefully. You are right in saying that we received a number of inputs requesting validation of data. This was something that the Compliance Team within ICANN told us they would like to see. And yes, we did deliberately not require that. I can only give you my personal understanding of why we didn't require validation on the way in. Partly, I don't think there would have been consensus within the Team for such a recommendation - but I may be wrong. One of the strengths of the Review is that despite being a cross-constituency team we managed to agree on all the recommendations. This will be vital going forward, as the recommendations will need approval by the ICANN Board and then implementation by many parties before they become a reality. Another reason is that validation only works going forward. There is a huge legacy problem (100m .coms alone, not counting .org, .net etc). The real harm we identified was from existing records that are so bad that no one can get hold of the registrant at all. We decided to set a tough target to reduce these 'unreachables' by half in a single year, and half again the following year. Don't get me wrong, personally I think it would be great if records going in were all validated, and our recommendation does not preclude data validation. In any event, rather than providing solutions, our job is to set expectations. I hope that our draft report makes it clear that the expectation of those who rely on WHOIS is for data accuracy to improve. An interesting development which has happened since our draft was published is the ongoing renegotiation of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. That is a closed door process, and I don't know the details. Reading news reports and general online chatter, it appears that data validation may be a requirement in the new RAA. If so, that would be great for the future. What it won't do, as stated above, is anything about the existing records - which are the main problem currently. However, the reason for publishing our draft report is to get feedback. Garlands are lovely, of course, but we also need to hear where our draft has not lived up to expectations. I hope that you will go on to do your blog piece, and submit some comments. I have cc'd the team, so that everyone is aware of this exchange, and can think about the comments you've made. [All - for any of you who don't know John Carr, he is an expert in online child protection, and has worked tirelessly in the UK and internationally on behalf of a coalition of children's charities to raise awareness of the harms caused by online images of child abuse. John's perspective is therefore that of a user of WHOIS. ] Others within the Team may wish to make comments on what you've asked, and may disagree with my version of events. I know from experience they will not hold back if they have any input to make! Thank you for reading the report, for your praise, and your constructive criticism, which are both welcome. Best wishes for 2012, and I hope we see each other again soon. Emily On 3 February 2012 09:41, John Carr > wrote: Hi Emily, Hope all goes well with you and yours. I got your message via Sharon and I will make a submission to the consultation on the WHOIS Review. I must say I loved reading the document ? it was surgical and devastating ? no wonder they are looking for a new CEO. It was also beautifully written. A model of plain English which was easy to understand. I am going to do a blog about it. The blog will be garlanded with flowers and praise but I cannot for the life of me understand why you did not come straight out and say the data should, correction, must, be validated on the way in. Several important voices also urged that but you make no specific reference to those voices in the final recommendations. So that will be a criticism I make and it will also form the basis of the submission I referred to above. Given the precision and clarity of the report?s language in every other respect I find it hard to believe that the distinct lack of it on that point was an oversight or the product of a failure to grasp or identify the point. You could have said, for example, ?Several representations have been made urging that etc???The Review Team is not unsympathetic to this idea, and as part of an ongoing series of measures to establish and maintain a higher level of data accuracy it could play a key part, but we would like to canvass a wider range of views before finalising our thinking.? In very many countries around the world it would be a trifling matter to validate the data on the way in and/or to reconfirm it periodically subsequently. It can be done in real time, very fast and very cheaply. In others it would be more difficult and more expensive, but not impossible, and even if it introduced a short delay while papers were checked or taken to e.g. a Post Office to be scrutinised, the gains in accuracy and therefore the gains in consumer confidence, law enforcement and Governmental confidence would be substantial. It is hard to imagine that a new Amazon or PayPal would be stillborn because it might have taken as long as 72 hours to get up and running with a new web site name. Would there be a drift away from some domains in some countries to others where it was possible to do everything immediately online? Compared to the net gain is that a good enough reason for not proceeding? Anyway, my question is: am I right in thinking you chaired and led the Review Team? I saw your name listed with ?Chairman? next to it but it then added that ccNSO reference so I wondered if?? Regards John Check out my blog: http://johnc1912.wordpress.com Follow me on Twitter: @johnc1912 -- [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 From emily at emilytaylor.eu Sun Feb 5 13:22:37 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:22:37 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Slides for Tuesday's meeting Message-ID: Hi James Further to our exchanges about Tuesday's meeting, here is a proposed slide deck. I've adapted it from the recent presentation to the GNSO. I've simplified the theme, to get rid of the reflected text, added the date, and audience, and then generally pruned the wording of the slides down a bit. I don't think I've changed the meaning, just made the slides a little more accessible. I will bring a USB with them on, and hope we can find someone who can drive them. All - let us know if you have any comments on the slides. These will form the basis of our presentation to the Community in Costa Rica, so let's keep incrementally editing them. See you Tuesday, James! 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/20120205/f066e86e/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: HLIG - WHOIS RT.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 92497 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120205/f066e86e/HLIG-WHOISRT.pptx