From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Feb 21 00:58:00 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Roadmap to a New Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (WHOIS) In-Reply-To: <0.0.7.83A.1CCF0156E4EA18C.0@drone103.ral.icpbounce.com> References: <0.0.7.83A.1CCF0156E4EA18C.0@drone103.ral.icpbounce.com> Message-ID: <4F42EC18.5080503@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, I am still reading through this as I pass it on to you. Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Roadmap to a New Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (WHOIS) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:26:04 -0500 From: ICANN News Alert To: kathy at kathykleiman.com ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb12-en.htm ________________________________ Public Comment: Roadmap to a New Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (WHOIS) 18 February 2012 ICANN is pleased to announce the posting of the draft roadmap http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.pdf [PDF, 214 KB] to implement ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee's Report on Domain Name WHOIS Terminology and Structure (SAC 051). To make or view comments click here http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm. The SSAC report specifically targets, among other things, the "internationalization" of the WHOIS protocol, reflecting concern about the inability of the current WHOIS protocol to consistently handle non-ASCII data. Additionally, SAC 051 recommends terminology to be used to clarify discussions where traditionally the terms Whois or WHOIS have been used. This roadmap explores the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051: SSAC Report on Domain Name WHOIS Terminology and Structure. As requested by the Board resolution, ICANN posts this draft Roadmap for community consultation, requesting community input on the scope, timing, utility, challenges, and ways to overcome those challenges that should also be considered. Staff will be conducting a public workshop on the draft roadmap http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.pdf [PDF, 214 KB] at ICANN's meeting in Costa Rica as an additional means of consulting with experts and the community. In order to allow extensive time for community dialogue and comment, it is envisioned to have two public comment periods allowing the draft Roadmap to evolve with the input received. Following that, the report will be finalized for Board and community action by the Prague ICANN meeting in June 2012. This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Manage Your Subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=22253995&l=6333&s=JC3G&m=874587&c=165637 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120220/09adf357/attachment.html From sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk Tue Feb 21 04:11:05 2012 From: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk (Sarmad Hussain) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:11:05 +0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Roadmap related to WHOIS published by ICANN for comments Message-ID: <4f43195e.6868b40a.0ce0.4553@mx.google.com> Please visit http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb12-en.htm. Regards, Sarmad ---- ???? ???? Sarmad Hussain Professor and Head Center for Language Engineering (www.cle.org.pk) Al-Khawarizmi Institute of Computer Science (www.kics.edu.pk) University of Engineering and Technology (www.uet.edu.pk) Lahore, PAKISTAN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120221/e7dc6783/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Feb 22 12:45:03 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:45:03 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Costa Rica schedule Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find enclosed the most recent version of your Costa Rican schedule also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/San+Jose+Meeting Rest assured that outlook invitations will be circulated as soon as locations are confirmed. Bridge details will be sent to those participating remotely. Emily and Kathy are currently in the process of finalizing draft agendas. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or concerns. 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 09:15-10:15 -- WHOIS Review Team - Board of Directors meeting NOTE: Emily needs to leave at 3:00 PM. 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 -- 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/20120222/0369bd2d/attachment.html From denise.michel at icann.org Wed Feb 22 19:22:10 2012 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:22:10 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN Staff Message-ID: Dear Team members, Thank you, again, for participating in this conference call with ICANN Staff. Below, and attached, is a summary of the Team's recommendations to help facilitate our discussion. 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 *WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendations* *Single WHOIS Policy* 1) ICANN's WHOIS policy is poorly defined and decentralized; Team recommends Board oversee creation and publication of a single WHOIS policy document; include gTLD WHOIS policy in Registry & Registrar contracts, GNSO consensus policies & procedures. *Policy Review ? WHOIS Data Reminder Policy (WDRP)* 2) Board should ensure that Compliance develops metrics to track impact of annual data reminder notices to registrants, and that these metrics be used to develop and publish performance targets to improve data accuracy over time (if not feasible, develop & implement an alternative policy). *Strategic Priority* 3) ICANN should make WHOIS a strategic priority, allocate sufficient resources to ensure Compliance is fully resourced to take a proactive regulatory role, encourage a culture of compliance; Board should ensure a senior member of the executive team is responsible for overseeing WHOIS compliance. *Outreach* 4) ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to interested communities outside of ICANN. *Data Accuracy* 5) ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of unreachable WHOIS registrations (as defined by the 2010 NORC Data Accuracy Study) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months. 6) ICANN shall publish annually an accuracy report on measured reduction in ?unreachable WHOIS registrations.? 7) ICANN should publish status reports (at least annually) (with figures) on its progress towards achieving goals set out by the Team, the first to be issued before next review. 8) ICANN should ensure that there is a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain of contractual agreements with Registries, Registrars, and Registrants to require the provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data; as part of this, ICANN should ensure that clear, enforceable and graduated sanctions apply to Registries, Registrars, Registrants that don?t comply with WHOIS policies, including de-registration and/or de-accreditation for serious or serial non-compliance. 9) ICANN should ensure that requirements for accurate WHOIS data are widely and pro-actively communicated to current and prospective registrants, and should ensure that its Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document is pro-actively, prominently circulated to all new and renewing registrants. *Data Access ? Privacy Services* 10) ICANN should develop and manage a system of clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for all privacy services consistent with national laws, balancing between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry around LE. These should include: WHOIS entry must clearly label that this is a private registration; privacy services must provide full contact details as required that are available and responsive (see above); standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes; rules for the appropriate level of publicly available information on the Registrant; maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the privacy service provider; privacy service provider shall conduct periodic due diligence checks. 11) ICANN should develop a graduated and enforceable series of penalties for privacy service providers who violate the requirements, with a clear path to de-accreditation for repeat, serial *Data Access - Proxy Services* 12) ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by reaching out to proxy providers to create a discussion that sets out current processes followed by these providers. 13) Registrars should be required to disclose to ICANN their relationship with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider. 14) ICANN should develop a set of voluntary best practice guidelines for appropriate proxy services consistent with national laws, striking a balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry around LE. Voluntary guidelines may include: proxy services provide full contact details as required; publication by the proxy service of its process for revealing and relaying information; standardization of reveal/relay processes & timeframes, consistent with national laws; maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the proxy service provider; due diligence checks on licensee contact information. 15) ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the retail service providers that adopt the best practices. 16) The published WHOIS Policy should include an affirmative statement that clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the Registrant is acting on behalf of another; the WHOIS data is that of the agent, and the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. *Data Access ? Common Interface* 17) To improve access to the WHOIS data of .COM & .NET gTLDs (the Thin Registries), ICANN should set-up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick WHOIS data for them. (An ?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? to provide thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names. *Internationalized Domain Names* 18) The ICANN Community should task a working group (WG) within 6 months of publication to finalize (i) encoding, (ii) modifications to data model, and (iii) internationalized services, to give global access to gather, store and make available internationalized registration data. Such WG should report no later than one year from formation, using existing IDN encoding. The WG should aim for consistency of approach across gTLDs and ? on a voluntary basis ? the ccTLD space. 19) The final data model and services should be incorporated and reflected in Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of adoption of the WG?s recommendations by the ICANN Board. If these recommendations are not finalized in time for the next revision of such agreements, explicit placeholders for this purpose should be put in place in the agreements for the new gTLD program at this time, and in the existing agreements when they come up for renewal (as is case for adoption of consensus policies). 20) Requirements for registration data accuracy and availability in local languages should be finalized (following initial work by IRD-WG and similar efforts, especially if translation or transliteration of data is stipulated) along with the efforts on internationalization of registration data. Metrics should be defined to measure accuracy and availability of data in local languages and (if needed) corresponding data in ASCII, and compliance methods and targets should be explicitly defined accordingly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120222/12f277b0/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendations .docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 218210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120222/12f277b0/WHOISPolicyReviewTeamDraftReportRecommendations.docx From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Thu Feb 23 05:04:59 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:04:59 +1100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN Staff [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3351B2CD2B@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hi all, I apologise that I wasn't able to join the call. Will a recording or transcript of the call be made available? Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 6:22 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN Staff Dear Team members, Thank you, again, for participating in this conference call with ICANN Staff. Below, and attached, is a summary of the Team's recommendations to help facilitate our discussion. 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 WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendations Single WHOIS Policy 1) ICANN's WHOIS policy is poorly defined and decentralized; Team recommends Board oversee creation and publication of a single WHOIS policy document; include gTLD WHOIS policy in Registry & Registrar contracts, GNSO consensus policies & procedures. Policy Review - WHOIS Data Reminder Policy (WDRP) 2) Board should ensure that Compliance develops metrics to track impact of annual data reminder notices to registrants, and that these metrics be used to develop and publish performance targets to improve data accuracy over time (if not feasible, develop & implement an alternative policy). Strategic Priority 3) ICANN should make WHOIS a strategic priority, allocate sufficient resources to ensure Compliance is fully resourced to take a proactive regulatory role, encourage a culture of compliance; Board should ensure a senior member of the executive team is responsible for overseeing WHOIS compliance. Outreach 4) ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to interested communities outside of ICANN. Data Accuracy 5) ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of unreachable WHOIS registrations (as defined by the 2010 NORC Data Accuracy Study) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months. 6) ICANN shall publish annually an accuracy report on measured reduction in "unreachable WHOIS registrations." 7) ICANN should publish status reports (at least annually) (with figures) on its progress towards achieving goals set out by the Team, the first to be issued before next review. 8) ICANN should ensure that there is a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain of contractual agreements with Registries, Registrars, and Registrants to require the provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data; as part of this, ICANN should ensure that clear, enforceable and graduated sanctions apply to Registries, Registrars, Registrants that don't comply with WHOIS policies, including de-registration and/or de-accreditation for serious or serial non-compliance. 9) ICANN should ensure that requirements for accurate WHOIS data are widely and pro-actively communicated to current and prospective registrants, and should ensure that its Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document is pro-actively, prominently circulated to all new and renewing registrants. Data Access - Privacy Services 10) ICANN should develop and manage a system of clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for all privacy services consistent with national laws, balancing between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry around LE. These should include: WHOIS entry must clearly label that this is a private registration; privacy services must provide full contact details as required that are available and responsive (see above); standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes; rules for the appropriate level of publicly available information on the Registrant; maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the privacy service provider; privacy service provider shall conduct periodic due diligence checks. 11) ICANN should develop a graduated and enforceable series of penalties for privacy service providers who violate the requirements, with a clear path to de-accreditation for repeat, serial Data Access - Proxy Services 12) ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by reaching out to proxy providers to create a discussion that sets out current processes followed by these providers. 13) Registrars should be required to disclose to ICANN their relationship with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider. 14) ICANN should develop a set of voluntary best practice guidelines for appropriate proxy services consistent with national laws, striking a balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry around LE. Voluntary guidelines may include: proxy services provide full contact details as required; publication by the proxy service of its process for revealing and relaying information; standardization of reveal/relay processes & timeframes, consistent with national laws; maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the proxy service provider; due diligence checks on licensee contact information. 15) ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the retail service providers that adopt the best practices. 16) The published WHOIS Policy should include an affirmative statement that clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the Registrant is acting on behalf of another; the WHOIS data is that of the agent, and the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. Data Access - Common Interface 17) To improve access to the WHOIS data of .COM & .NET gTLDs (the Thin Registries), ICANN should set-up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick WHOIS data for them. (An "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" to provide thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names. Internationalized Domain Names 18) The ICANN Community should task a working group (WG) within 6 months of publication to finalize (i) encoding, (ii) modifications to data model, and (iii) internationalized services, to give global access to gather, store and make available internationalized registration data. Such WG should report no later than one year from formation, using existing IDN encoding. The WG should aim for consistency of approach across gTLDs and - on a voluntary basis - the ccTLD space. 19) The final data model and services should be incorporated and reflected in Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of adoption of the WG's recommendations by the ICANN Board. If these recommendations are not finalized in time for the next revision of such agreements, explicit placeholders for this purpose should be put in place in the agreements for the new gTLD program at this time, and in the existing agreements when they come up for renewal (as is case for adoption of consensus policies). 20) Requirements for registration data accuracy and availability in local languages should be finalized (following initial work by IRD-WG and similar efforts, especially if translation or transliteration of data is stipulated) along with the efforts on internationalization of registration data. Metrics should be defined to measure accuracy and availability of data in local languages and (if needed) corresponding data in ASCII, and compliance methods and targets should be explicitly defined accordingly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120223/1abeb5eb/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu Feb 23 09:38:27 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:38:27 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN Staff [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3351B2CD2B@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3351B2CD2B@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Hi Peter Unfortunately, the call was not recorded, but I asked Alice to keep a full note, and she will circulate that as soon as possible. We had a very good discussion on the draft recommendations. Kind regards Emily On 23 February 2012 05:04, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: > Hi all,**** > > ** ** > > I apologise that I wasn?t able to join the call. Will a recording or > transcript of the call be made available?**** > > ** ** > > Cheers,**** > > ** ** > > Peter**** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Denise Michel > *Sent:* Thursday, 23 February 2012 6:22 AM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN > Staff**** > > ** ** > > Dear Team members, > > Thank you, again, for participating in this conference call with ICANN > Staff. > > Below, and attached, is a summary of the Team's recommendations to help > facilitate our discussion. **** > > > 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**** > > ** ** > > *WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendations***** > > *Single WHOIS Policy***** > > 1) ICANN's WHOIS policy is poorly defined and decentralized; Team > recommends Board oversee creation and publication of a single WHOIS policy > document; include gTLD WHOIS policy in Registry & Registrar contracts, GNSO > consensus policies & procedures.**** > > *Policy Review ? WHOIS Data Reminder Policy (WDRP)***** > > 2) Board should ensure that Compliance develops metrics to track impact of > annual data reminder notices to registrants, and that these metrics be used > to develop and publish performance targets to improve data accuracy over > time (if not feasible, develop & implement an alternative policy). **** > > *Strategic Priority***** > > 3) ICANN should make WHOIS a strategic priority, allocate sufficient > resources to ensure Compliance is fully resourced to take a proactive > regulatory role, encourage a culture of compliance; Board should ensure a > senior member of the executive team is responsible for overseeing WHOIS > compliance.**** > > *Outreach***** > > 4) ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by > cross-community outreach, including outreach to interested communities > outside of ICANN.**** > > *Data Accuracy***** > > 5) ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of > unreachable WHOIS registrations (as defined by the 2010 NORC Data Accuracy > Study) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 > months.**** > > 6) ICANN shall publish annually an accuracy report on measured reduction > in ?unreachable WHOIS registrations.?**** > > 7) ICANN should publish status reports (at least annually) (with figures) > on its progress towards achieving goals set out by the Team, the first to > be issued before next review.**** > > 8) ICANN should ensure that there is a clear, unambiguous and enforceable > chain of contractual agreements with Registries, Registrars, and > Registrants to require the provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS > data; as part of this, ICANN should ensure that clear, enforceable and > graduated sanctions apply to Registries, Registrars, Registrants that don?t > comply with WHOIS policies, including de-registration and/or > de-accreditation for serious or serial non-compliance.**** > > 9) ICANN should ensure that requirements for accurate WHOIS data are > widely and pro-actively communicated to current and prospective > registrants, and should ensure that its Registrant Rights and > Responsibilities document is pro-actively, prominently circulated to all > new and renewing registrants. **** > > *Data Access ? Privacy Services***** > > 10) ICANN should develop and manage a system of clear, consistent and > enforceable requirements for all privacy services consistent with national > laws, balancing between stakeholders with competing but legitimate > interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry > around LE. These should include: WHOIS entry must clearly label that this > is a private registration; privacy services must provide full contact > details as required that are available and responsive (see above); > standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes; rules for the > appropriate level of publicly available information on the Registrant; > maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the privacy service > provider; privacy service provider shall conduct periodic due diligence > checks.**** > > 11) ICANN should develop a graduated and enforceable series of penalties > for privacy service providers who violate the requirements, with a clear > path to de-accreditation for repeat, serial**** > > *Data Access - Proxy Services***** > > 12) ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by reaching > out to proxy providers to create a discussion that sets out current > processes followed by these providers.**** > > 13) Registrars should be required to disclose to ICANN their relationship > with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider.**** > > 14) ICANN should develop a set of voluntary best practice guidelines for > appropriate proxy services consistent with national laws, striking a > balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests, > including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry around LE. > Voluntary guidelines may include: proxy services provide full contact > details as required; publication by the proxy service of its process for > revealing and relaying information; standardization of reveal/relay > processes & timeframes, consistent with national laws; maintenance of a > dedicated abuse point of contact for the proxy service provider; due > diligence checks on licensee contact information.**** > > 15) ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the > retail service providers that adopt the best practices.**** > > 16) The published WHOIS Policy should include an affirmative statement > that clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the Registrant is > acting on behalf of another; the WHOIS data is that of the agent, and the > agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the > domain name and its manner of use.**** > > *Data Access ? Common Interface***** > > 17) To improve access to the WHOIS data of .COM & .NET gTLDs (the Thin > Registries), ICANN should set-up a dedicated, multilingual interface > website to provide thick WHOIS data for them. (An ?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? to provide > thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names. **** > > *Internationalized Domain Names***** > > 18) The ICANN Community should task a working group (WG) within 6 months > of publication to finalize (i) encoding, (ii) modifications to data model, > and (iii) internationalized services, to give global access to gather, > store and make available internationalized registration data. Such WG > should report no later than one year from formation, using existing IDN > encoding. The WG should aim for consistency of approach across gTLDs and ? > on a voluntary basis ? the ccTLD space.**** > > 19) The final data model and services should be incorporated and reflected > in Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of adoption of the > WG?s recommendations by the ICANN Board. If these recommendations are not > finalized in time for the next revision of such agreements, explicit > placeholders for this purpose should be put in place in the agreements for > the new gTLD program at this time, and in the existing agreements when they > come up for renewal (as is case for adoption of consensus policies).**** > > 20) Requirements for registration data accuracy and availability in local > languages should be finalized (following initial work by IRD-WG and similar > efforts, especially if translation or transliteration of data is > stipulated) along with the efforts on internationalization of registration > data. Metrics should be defined to measure accuracy and availability of > data in local languages and (if needed) corresponding data in ASCII, and > compliance methods and targets should be explicitly defined accordingly.** > ** > > **** > > ** ** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > 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. > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120223/329e2cba/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu Feb 23 12:38:25 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:38:25 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN Staff [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3351B2CD2B@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3351B2CD2B@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <4F463341.7020202@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, I'll share my views about the call, Peter, and hopefully, everyone else will chime in. I thought the questions ICANN Senior Staff asked were good. They were certainly well-versed, and we did no initial presentation, but jumped right into the recommendations. They seemed to be seeking clarification and understanding. After several of the answers, they said they understood the issues and what we were seeking to achieve far better --- e.g., on the reduction of "on its face" invalid information in the Whois database. I thought it was a good meeting. Other thoughts? Best, kathy : > > Hi all, > > I apologise that I wasn't able to join the call. Will a recording or > transcript of the call be made available? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > *From:*rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Denise Michel > *Sent:* Thursday, 23 February 2012 6:22 AM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN > Staff > > Dear Team members, > > Thank you, again, for participating in this conference call with ICANN > Staff. > > Below, and attached, is a summary of the Team's recommendations to > help facilitate our discussion. > > > 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 > > *WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendations* > > *Single WHOIS Policy* > > 1) ICANN's WHOIS policy is poorly defined and decentralized; Team > recommends Board oversee creation and publication of a single WHOIS > policy document; include gTLD WHOIS policy in Registry & Registrar > contracts, GNSO consensus policies & procedures. > > *Policy Review -- WHOIS Data Reminder Policy (WDRP)* > > 2) Board should ensure that Compliance develops metrics to track > impact of annual data reminder notices to registrants, and that these > metrics be used to develop and publish performance targets to improve > data accuracy over time (if not feasible, develop & implement an > alternative policy). > > *Strategic Priority* > > 3) ICANN should make WHOIS a strategic priority, allocate sufficient > resources to ensure Compliance is fully resourced to take a proactive > regulatory role, encourage a culture of compliance; Board should > ensure a senior member of the executive team is responsible for > overseeing WHOIS compliance. > > *Outreach* > > 4) ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by > cross-community outreach, including outreach to interested communities > outside of ICANN. > > *Data Accuracy* > > 5) ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of > unreachable WHOIS registrations (as defined by the 2010 NORC Data > Accuracy Study) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the > following 12 months. > > 6) ICANN shall publish annually an accuracy report on measured > reduction in "unreachable WHOIS registrations." > > 7) ICANN should publish status reports (at least annually) (with > figures) on its progress towards achieving goals set out by the Team, > the first to be issued before next review. > > 8) ICANN should ensure that there is a clear, unambiguous and > enforceable chain of contractual agreements with Registries, > Registrars, and Registrants to require the provision and maintenance > of accurate WHOIS data; as part of this, ICANN should ensure that > clear, enforceable and graduated sanctions apply to Registries, > Registrars, Registrants that don't comply with WHOIS policies, > including de-registration and/or de-accreditation for serious or > serial non-compliance. > > 9) ICANN should ensure that requirements for accurate WHOIS data are > widely and pro-actively communicated to current and prospective > registrants, and should ensure that its Registrant Rights and > Responsibilities document is pro-actively, prominently circulated to > all new and renewing registrants. > > *Data Access -- Privacy Services* > > 10) ICANN should develop and manage a system of clear, consistent and > enforceable requirements for all privacy services consistent with > national laws, balancing between stakeholders with competing but > legitimate interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law > enforcement and industry around LE. These should include: WHOIS entry > must clearly label that this is a private registration; privacy > services must provide full contact details as required that are > available and responsive (see above); standardized relay and reveal > processes and timeframes; rules for the appropriate level of publicly > available information on the Registrant; maintenance of a dedicated > abuse point of contact for the privacy service provider; privacy > service provider shall conduct periodic due diligence checks. > > 11) ICANN should develop a graduated and enforceable series of > penalties for privacy service providers who violate the requirements, > with a clear path to de-accreditation for repeat, serial > > *Data Access - Proxy Services* > > 12) ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by > reaching out to proxy providers to create a discussion that sets out > current processes followed by these providers. > > 13) Registrars should be required to disclose to ICANN their > relationship with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider. > > 14) ICANN should develop a set of voluntary best practice guidelines > for appropriate proxy services consistent with national laws, striking > a balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate > interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and > industry around LE. Voluntary guidelines may include: proxy services > provide full contact details as required; publication by the proxy > service of its process for revealing and relaying information; > standardization of reveal/relay processes & timeframes, consistent > with national laws; maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact > for the proxy service provider; due diligence checks on licensee > contact information. > > 15) ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with > the retail service providers that adopt the best practices. > > 16) The published WHOIS Policy should include an affirmative statement > that clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the > Registrant is acting on behalf of another; the WHOIS data is that of > the agent, and the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all > responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. > > *Data Access -- Common Interface* > > 17) To improve access to the WHOIS data of .COM & .NET gTLDs (the Thin > Registries), ICANN should set-up a dedicated, multilingual interface > website to provide thick WHOIS data for them. (An "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" to provide thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names. > > *Internationalized Domain Names* > > 18) The ICANN Community should task a working group (WG) within 6 > months of publication to finalize (i) encoding, (ii) modifications to > data model, and (iii) internationalized services, to give global > access to gather, store and make available internationalized > registration data. Such WG should report no later than one year from > formation, using existing IDN encoding. The WG should aim for > consistency of approach across gTLDs and -- on a voluntary basis -- > the ccTLD space. > > 19) The final data model and services should be incorporated and > reflected in Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of > adoption of the WG's recommendations by the ICANN Board. If these > recommendations are not finalized in time for the next revision of > such agreements, explicit placeholders for this purpose should be put > in place in the agreements for the new gTLD program at this time, and > in the existing agreements when they come up for renewal (as is case > for adoption of consensus policies). > > 20) Requirements for registration data accuracy and availability in > local languages should be finalized (following initial work by IRD-WG > and similar efforts, especially if translation or transliteration of > data is stipulated) along with the efforts on internationalization of > registration data. Metrics should be defined to measure accuracy and > availability of data in local languages and (if needed) corresponding > data in ASCII, and compliance methods and targets should be explicitly > defined accordingly. > > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > 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. > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120223/fc4c456a/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Thu Feb 23 12:39:05 2012 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:39:05 -0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN Staff [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3351B2CD2B@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3351B2CD2B@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: My apologies too, I was out of office travelling. Denise, thanks for the summary. Omar 2012/2/23 Nettlefold, Peter > Hi all,**** > > ** ** > > I apologise that I wasn?t able to join the call. Will a recording or > transcript of the call be made available?**** > > ** ** > > Cheers,**** > > ** ** > > Peter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120223/e60b19b8/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Feb 23 20:21:13 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:21:13 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN Staff [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <4F463341.7020202@kathykleiman.com> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3351B2CD2B@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <4F463341.7020202@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <1BF5ECA3-EA8D-4EBC-BD2A-8D072519DCB2@paypal.com> I thought it was a good, and instructive meeting as well. I agree they were looking for clarification on our recommendations, and that means they had read and discussed them - all good. I also want to acknowledge James' suggestion that all of our recommendations be consensus recommendations. Our ability to stand as a group is quite important and was quietly demonstrated yesterday. Lastly, looking forward, it will be important for some, or all of us, to remain engaged as our recommendations are debated, accepted, and implemented. That too became clear yesterday. On Feb 23, 2012, at 7:38 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi All, I'll share my views about the call, Peter, and hopefully, everyone else will chime in. I thought the questions ICANN Senior Staff asked were good. They were certainly well-versed, and we did no initial presentation, but jumped right into the recommendations. They seemed to be seeking clarification and understanding. After several of the answers, they said they understood the issues and what we were seeking to achieve far better --- e.g., on the reduction of "on its face" invalid information in the Whois database. I thought it was a good meeting. Other thoughts? Best, kathy : Hi all, I apologise that I wasn?t able to join the call. Will a recording or transcript of the call be made available? Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 6:22 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN Staff Dear Team members, Thank you, again, for participating in this conference call with ICANN Staff. Below, and attached, is a summary of the Team's recommendations to help facilitate our discussion. 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 WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendations Single WHOIS Policy 1) ICANN's WHOIS policy is poorly defined and decentralized; Team recommends Board oversee creation and publication of a single WHOIS policy document; include gTLD WHOIS policy in Registry & Registrar contracts, GNSO consensus policies & procedures. Policy Review ? WHOIS Data Reminder Policy (WDRP) 2) Board should ensure that Compliance develops metrics to track impact of annual data reminder notices to registrants, and that these metrics be used to develop and publish performance targets to improve data accuracy over time (if not feasible, develop & implement an alternative policy). Strategic Priority 3) ICANN should make WHOIS a strategic priority, allocate sufficient resources to ensure Compliance is fully resourced to take a proactive regulatory role, encourage a culture of compliance; Board should ensure a senior member of the executive team is responsible for overseeing WHOIS compliance. Outreach 4) ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to interested communities outside of ICANN. Data Accuracy 5) ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of unreachable WHOIS registrations (as defined by the 2010 NORC Data Accuracy Study) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months. 6) ICANN shall publish annually an accuracy report on measured reduction in ?unreachable WHOIS registrations.? 7) ICANN should publish status reports (at least annually) (with figures) on its progress towards achieving goals set out by the Team, the first to be issued before next review. 8) ICANN should ensure that there is a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain of contractual agreements with Registries, Registrars, and Registrants to require the provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data; as part of this, ICANN should ensure that clear, enforceable and graduated sanctions apply to Registries, Registrars, Registrants that don?t comply with WHOIS policies, including de-registration and/or de-accreditation for serious or serial non-compliance. 9) ICANN should ensure that requirements for accurate WHOIS data are widely and pro-actively communicated to current and prospective registrants, and should ensure that its Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document is pro-actively, prominently circulated to all new and renewing registrants. Data Access ? Privacy Services 10) ICANN should develop and manage a system of clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for all privacy services consistent with national laws, balancing between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry around LE. These should include: WHOIS entry must clearly label that this is a private registration; privacy services must provide full contact details as required that are available and responsive (see above); standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes; rules for the appropriate level of publicly available information on the Registrant; maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the privacy service provider; privacy service provider shall conduct periodic due diligence checks. 11) ICANN should develop a graduated and enforceable series of penalties for privacy service providers who violate the requirements, with a clear path to de-accreditation for repeat, serial Data Access - Proxy Services 12) ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by reaching out to proxy providers to create a discussion that sets out current processes followed by these providers. 13) Registrars should be required to disclose to ICANN their relationship with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider. 14) ICANN should develop a set of voluntary best practice guidelines for appropriate proxy services consistent with national laws, striking a balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry around LE. Voluntary guidelines may include: proxy services provide full contact details as required; publication by the proxy service of its process for revealing and relaying information; standardization of reveal/relay processes & timeframes, consistent with national laws; maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the proxy service provider; due diligence checks on licensee contact information. 15) ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the retail service providers that adopt the best practices. 16) The published WHOIS Policy should include an affirmative statement that clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the Registrant is acting on behalf of another; the WHOIS data is that of the agent, and the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. Data Access ? Common Interface 17) To improve access to the WHOIS data of .COM & .NET gTLDs (the Thin Registries), ICANN should set-up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick WHOIS data for them. (An ?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? to provide thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names. Internationalized Domain Names 18) The ICANN Community should task a working group (WG) within 6 months of publication to finalize (i) encoding, (ii) modifications to data model, and (iii) internationalized services, to give global access to gather, store and make available internationalized registration data. Such WG should report no later than one year from formation, using existing IDN encoding. The WG should aim for consistency of approach across gTLDs and ? on a voluntary basis ? the ccTLD space. 19) The final data model and services should be incorporated and reflected in Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of adoption of the WG?s recommendations by the ICANN Board. If these recommendations are not finalized in time for the next revision of such agreements, explicit placeholders for this purpose should be put in place in the agreements for the new gTLD program at this time, and in the existing agreements when they come up for renewal (as is case for adoption of consensus policies). 20) Requirements for registration data accuracy and availability in local languages should be finalized (following initial work by IRD-WG and similar efforts, especially if translation or transliteration of data is stipulated) along with the efforts on internationalization of registration data. Metrics should be defined to measure accuracy and availability of data in local languages and (if needed) corresponding data in ASCII, and compliance methods and targets should be explicitly defined accordingly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Feb 24 13:12:36 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:12:36 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] FW: Costa Rica - departure tax In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F478CC4.4090900@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, Here's a note to the GNSO on a departure tax from Costa Rica, and how to avoid long lines at the airport. Best, Kathy *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From:* owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Glen de Saint G?ry *Sent:* ??????, 23 ??????????? 2012 10:48 ?? *To:* liaison6c *Subject:* [liaison6c] Costa Rica - departure tax Dear All, Heads up about airport tax on departure: You will need to pay a departure tax in Costa Rica before going back to the airport $32 dollars (US dollars. Do it at the RAMADA tour office and/or your hotel should offer you that service from their concierge. Do it early when you first check in or you can do at the Ramada ? don?t forget ? they take credit card or cash at the hotel.Do not wait to do this at the airport as it?s a mess, long lines, and I believe they only take cash (Costa Rica currency only) Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat 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/20120224/b81ec2d0/attachment.html From denise.michel at icann.org Fri Feb 24 21:18:32 2012 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:18:32 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Question regarding Board conference call Message-ID: Dear Emily, I received a query from a few Board members and would appreciate your/the Team's assistance in answering. Board members have received a detailed briefing on the Team's recommendations from me, and many (perhaps all?) plan to attend the Team's public forum in Costa Rica. They'd like to know if the Team intends to present Board members with the same information as they'll present in Costa Rica, or if you have more information to share? They were wondering if there is an additional purpose to this call beyond a general briefing on the Team's draft report? I know the original intent (as I recall) was to brief the Board as soon as the draft report was issued to help focus their attention and answer questions. You certainly have their attention :). Thanks for your assistance. Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120224/a590d3ac/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Sat Feb 25 08:31:24 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:31:24 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Question regarding Board conference call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Denise Thanks for your message. I understood the purpose of the call as an initial orientation/briefing session, to run through the findings and recommendations, so that we can make the most of our time together in Costa Rica and make it interactive. If we have to spend the time in Costa Rica doing basic orientation, then it will cut down on the dialogue. The other purpose was to help us (the Review Team) to understand if the board see any show stoppers or foresee any major challenges in implementing any of the recommendations - this will give us more time to assimilate the views prior to our working meetings in Costa Rica. In short, I do see a value in the call as well as the face to face, particularly given how little interaction we have had with the board to date. Kind Regards Emily On Friday, February 24, 2012, Denise Michel wrote: > Dear Emily, > > I received a query from a few Board members and would appreciate your/the > Team's assistance in answering. > > Board members have received a detailed briefing on the Team's > recommendations from me, and many (perhaps all?) plan to attend the Team's > public forum in Costa Rica. They'd like to know if the Team intends to > present Board members with the same information as they'll present in Costa > Rica, or if you have more information to share? They were wondering if > there is an additional purpose to this call beyond a general briefing on > the Team's draft report? > > I know the original intent (as I recall) was to brief the Board as soon as > the draft report was issued to help focus their attention and answer > questions. You certainly have their attention :). > > Thanks for your assistance. > > Denise > > > Denise Michel > ICANN > Advisor to the President & CEO > denise.michel at icann.org 'denise.michel at icann.org');> > +1.408.429.3072 mobile > +1.310.578.8632 direct > -- * * 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/20120225/53637974/attachment.html From denise.michel at icann.org Sat Feb 25 16:06:10 2012 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:06:10 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Question regarding Board conference call In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Thanks, Emily. Sounds good. I'll pass this on. Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: > Dear Denise > > Thanks for your message. I understood the purpose of the call as an > initial orientation/briefing session, to run through the findings and > recommendations, so that we can make the most of our time together in Costa > Rica and make it interactive. If we have to spend the time in Costa Rica > doing basic orientation, then it will cut down on the dialogue. The other > purpose was to help us (the Review Team) to understand if the board see any > show stoppers or foresee any major challenges in implementing any of the > recommendations - this will give us more time to assimilate the views prior > to our working meetings in Costa Rica. In short, I do see a value in the > call as well as the face to face, particularly given how little interaction > we have had with the board to date. > > Kind Regards > > Emily > > On Friday, February 24, 2012, Denise Michel wrote: > >> Dear Emily, >> >> I received a query from a few Board members and would appreciate your/the >> Team's assistance in answering. >> >> Board members have received a detailed briefing on the Team's >> recommendations from me, and many (perhaps all?) plan to attend the Team's >> public forum in Costa Rica. They'd like to know if the Team intends to >> present Board members with the same information as they'll present in Costa >> Rica, or if you have more information to share? They were wondering if >> there is an additional purpose to this call beyond a general briefing on >> the Team's draft report? >> >> I know the original intent (as I recall) was to brief the Board as soon >> as the draft report was issued to help focus their attention and answer >> questions. You certainly have their attention :). >> >> Thanks for your assistance. >> >> Denise >> >> >> Denise Michel >> ICANN >> Advisor to the President & CEO >> denise.michel at icann.org >> +1.408.429.3072 mobile >> +1.310.578.8632 direct >> > > > -- > > > > > * > * > > 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/20120225/7446cb6f/attachment.html