From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Mar 12 12:03:48 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 05:03:48 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] MONDAY: Where do I need to be today? Message-ID: 07:30-09:30 -- WHOIS Review Team Breakfast (in preparation for afternoon public session) - Girasol ? CANCELLED --- 12:00-12:30 -- Compliance Program Overview - Girasol - http://costarica43.icann.org/full-schedule --- 13:00-15:00 -- RAA Progress Report and WHOIS Data Validation Workshop - La Paz A, La Paz C - http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29531 --- 16:30-18:00 -- WHOIS Interaction with the Community - La Paz A, C 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 Agenda: 1. Outline of WHOIS Review Team mandate & activities 2. Presentation of findings & recommendations 3. Q&A and discussion 4. Public comment period & final report --- 18:00-19:30 -- WHOIS Internal Debriefing - Girasol - CLOSED Note: Drinks will be served 1. Let's go around the table! 2. Debriefing 3. Next steps 4. Prepare for sessions with the GAC and Board 5. A.O.B -- 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/20120312/8dee1f79/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Mar 12 14:23:49 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 07:23:49 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Interaction with the Community Session Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the slides that will be projected during you Interaction with the Community session today. Kindly note that they are available on the ICANN schedule at: http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29535 Interpreting and live scribing services will be available during your meeting. Attached you will also find the handout for the public. Kindly note that I will provide you with tent cards. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Assistant, Organizational Reviews 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/bac43358/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS RT - Interaction.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 174543 bytes Desc: WHOIS RT - Interaction.pdf Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/bac43358/WHOISRT-Interaction.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS RT - Interaction with the community 16-30-18-00.ppt Type: application/x-mspowerpoint Size: 800768 bytes Desc: WHOIS RT - Interaction with the community 16-30-18-00.ppt Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/bac43358/WHOISRT-Interactionwiththecommunity16-30-18-00.ppt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Handouts for Public.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 197258 bytes Desc: Handouts for Public.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/bac43358/HandoutsforPublic.docx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Handouts for Public.pdf Type: application/x-msword Size: 1845227 bytes Desc: Handouts for Public.pdf Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/bac43358/HandoutsforPublic.pdf From jbladel at godaddy.com Mon Mar 12 17:39:55 2012 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:39:55 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Interesting example of Privacy and Business Message-ID: <20120312103955.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.3b362a8024.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/53d1fe2a/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Mar 13 00:18:48 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:18:48 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from ICANN Meeting 43 - La Paz A In-Reply-To: <24431679.160993.1331597064348.JavaMail.breezesvc@pacna7app03> Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find below content of the Adobe room chat box. Lutz was in the room interacting with remote participants. Lutz has also me asked me to email you a message: JUst an "internal" comment. German LAE asks how "proxy/privacy" can be use to protect identiies in witness protections programms. I urged them to send in a comment .... Thanks, Kind regards Alice Quote: On 3/12/12 6:04 PM, "Alice Jansen" wrote: > Alice Jansen:Welcome to the WHOIS Policy Review Team Session. The >session will begin shortly. Your comments and questions will be read in >the room if asked. > Rob Golding (othello):? 6. measure reduction in "unreachable domain >names" - why does a *domain* have to reachable - or do you means >something else ? > Olof Nordling:@Rob - will read out your question in the Q&A, if you so >wish. > Rob Golding (othello):@olof - please - just to clarify the slide - i >*think* she meant where the registrant isnt (obviously) contactable, but >thats not how it was worded > Olof Nordling:@Rob - I am confident you are correct in that assumption >- rather an edit of the slide to be suggested, thus. > gpmgroup:Wby doesn't ICANN offer an incentive to have open & accurate >WHOIS data? > gpmgroup:Why > Olof Nordling:@gpmgroup - happy to read that one out in the Q&A, OK? > gpmgroup:thanks perhaps I should word it a little less ambigiously > Olof Nordling:listening;-) > Olof Nordling:listening;-) > Omar Kaminski:Feedback from Twitter: "@miltonmueller: Whois Review team >concludes that most consumers have never heard of Whois. So much for the >argument that it promotes consumer trust" > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup there are lots of reasons for >why people don't want all there date public > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:data > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:Still the whois service for .com and .net >and others like them are a shame and not trustworthy > Rob Golding (othello):? are there recommendations on Criminalising >misuses of WHOIS data - it took less than 3 days from a new registration >before spam started arriving at the unique email address I used on the >domain registration - having such information freely available and public >is not just a privacy concern but a real issue to normal users who dont >need a supplier of dodgy pharmaceuticals > gpmgroup:I agree Benny but if there was more incentives then it would >be an easy (dristibuted) way of cleaning up a large data set > Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - each registrar implenets their own whois >system for com/net as it's thin whois - there are many pros and cons to >that - pros being keepingyoru client data away from versign, cons being >no single layout/implementation of the data > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@rob one of may reasons > gpmgroup:@ Olof Why doesn?t ICANN offer incentives to have open & >accurate WHOIS? > gpmgroup:lost sound > Amy Mushahwar:Yes, I've lost audio, too. > Rob Golding (othello):its gone silent :( > Olof Nordling:we have notified the tech services > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@Rob, clearly god reasons you state but >whats the alternative ? > Alice Jansen:Apologies - our Staff is looking into the issue. Please >refer to the live scribing in the meantime. Thanks for your patience. > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:I mean for a lot of CC tlds its working >fine > Lutz Donnerhacke:@Benny: No Whois at all? > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:anyway there are a lot of them not working >too > gpmgroup:http://stream.icann.org/sjo43-lapaza-64-en.m3u > gpmgroup:external sound > Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - personally I think WHOIS is largely >pointless and has been for 10 years - in t'old days, when t'interweb was >run by people who met down the pub on a friday, it was suseful to knwo >who should be contacted about nameserver changes (the tech contact) - now >the only person any 3rd party needs realy to contact is the registrar > Rob Golding (othello):is Law-Enforcement have a valid reason to request >the "real" data behind a registration, subject to approraite paperwork >they can ask > Lutz Donnerhacke:Rob: You are seeking for contractual realtionships in >Whois? Like a thin whois delegation structure? > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So if for any reason as a hosting company >wants to check an owner for a competing domain or infrigements on >trademark it shall be hidden ? > Lutz Donnerhacke:Please send in your questions to the public comment >list. Otherwise the comments will likly be overseen. > Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz - whois as a way of determining availbility >of a domain is flawed - it's not the right method, and as a way for >anyone-and-evreyone to ocntact the domain owner - the question really is >why shoudl a 3rd party have any "right" to contact anyone - i *choose* if >my phone number is published in a directory, and commercial calls (as >it's not public) to the number are an *offence* in uk law- why shouldnt >whois data be the same - fines for people using it incorrectly - if that >was possible people might bemore inclined to give accurate details > Lutz Donnerhacke:Please add thsi valueable comment to the list. Let it >point to proxyy an privacy services > Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz - my *personal* opinion is that it's long >past its "sell by date" and needs to be taken off the protocol list > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@Rob there is a huge difference in someone >registering microosoft.com and and someone who is given a phonenumber... > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the one registrering a domain is doing >somethin active for abuse someone elses rights > Alice Jansen:Participants, please let us know whether you would like us >to read your comments in the room. Thanks > Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - and there should be methods to determine >who that person is - and the _ONLY_ people who would know are teh >registrar, as it'll be their client > Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - but the number od *domain* infringments >is tiny - much more goes on at the _hosting_ level, which whois doesnt >help with > Lutz Donnerhacke:Hosting is easily determined: By looking up the AS >Number from the BGP Routing entry > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So you would like to hand out data for >every registrar requesting data? > Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz Host != Network :) > gpmgroup:anyone offering commercial services should have to use open >and accurate WHOIS > Lutz Donnerhacke:Benny: The AoC is clear: "easy, accurate and complete >access ..." > gpmgroup:Product launcehs and mergers is a poor excuse > Lutz Donnerhacke:gpmgroup: Law Enforcement itself need "privacy" for >protecting their people in the witness protection programms > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup spammers harvesting is a very >good reason for not giving good data to whois > Lutz Donnerhacke:But again: Bring it to the public omment forum. >Otherwise the discussion is lost. > Rob Golding (othello):@gpmgroup - and across the EU (and other regions) >thats the requirement for valid details on the _website_ - but the >_domain_ doenst need to be owned by the organisation using it, and >in-and-of-itself doesnt need *public* contact information > gpmgroup:@Benny I know and some companies in the domain industry who >should know better are scraping the whois > Rob Golding (othello):@gpmgroup - you have to "scrape" the whois to get >the contacts on a transfer ! > Rob Golding (othello):olof - my question ... ? are there >recommendations on Criminalising misuses of WHOIS data - it took less >than 3 days from a new registration before spam started arriving at the >unique email address I used on the domain registration - having such >information freely available and public is not just a privacy concern but >a real issue to normal users who dont need a supplier of dodgy >pharmaceuticals > Olof Nordling:@Rob - I'll get to the end of the queue here and deliver >that one > JorgeAmodio:good one Milton > gpmgroup:@Rob there's a whole difference between using the WHOIS to >facilitate a domain transfer and scraping the WHOIS to send out spam >emails to thousands of third party registrants > JorgeAmodio:sure the users will do a Whois before clicking > JorgeAmodio:consumer DONT KNOW what Whois is > Rob Golding (othello):@pmgroup - i know, but you have to get these >things in th opene before some fool creates a policy to "ban" scraping of >whois data ;) > Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: MOde users does not know how to even ask a >whois question (hint: that's the protocol using TCP/43) ... But most does >not even know about whois at all > JorgeAmodio:0% > Rob Golding (othello):@Jorge - users donteve understand what ssl is - >thats why phishing scams are so effectn hen they just have a padock on >teh page noin the browser bar ! > Lutz Donnerhacke:That's why the recommendation to provide an "all whois >web interface" by ICANN exists > Lutz Donnerhacke:JUst listen to bill > JorgeAmodio:ha wait need to LOL about that > Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: WHy? > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So why is it so difficult to create a >standard on this, with RFCs for anything else and standards for a lot of >other things, wy is this so difficult for whois ? > Lutz Donnerhacke:Benny: Because almost all service uses a different set >of options, results and languages > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:I should be rather simple imo > Lutz Donnerhacke:Most ccTLDs ar enot allowed to provide the data by >local law. > Alice Jansen:Kind reminder: Participants, please let us know if you >would like your comments to be read in the room. Thanks. > Lutz Donnerhacke:Then the ODN problem. Can you parse an japanese >response? > Lutz Donnerhacke:Sorry, ALice > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:well its just data... so if you have a >standard it shouldnt be a problem > JorgeAmodio:mike please > Alice Jansen:No need to be sorry, Lutz. You are perfectly free to chat >with other participants :-). Just wanted to let you know that Olof and I >are ready to voice your comments/questions if you wish > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the problem is the standard which are non >existing > JorgeAmodio:nope it is not > JorgeAmodio:no it is not even an imperfect solution > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:let me refrase that.. the problem is the >standard which are implemented in so many different ways and shall cover >so many different demands from different lawmakers and registries > JorgeAmodio:its conception had nothing to do for what you are trying to >use it > JorgeAmodio:useless > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:looking at the statistics for wdrp >responses and updates it's less than 2 % who cares to look at the whois >data > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:most registrants don't care.. thats the >reality here > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:And I am quite sure that most registrars >are happy as long as the got paid > JorgeAmodio:the ones who care are law enforcement entities > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:from the registrants > gpmgroup:@ Beeny its easy givem a refund so they do care > JorgeAmodio:and IP attorneys trying to find contact info about who to >sue > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup what kind of refund have you in >mind? > gpmgroup:Make it more expensive to use privacy if you don't want >privacy to be widely used , give money back to registrants who verify >their data > JorgeAmodio:they will pay for privacy that's a fact > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:so lets see selling domains for 9 usd >paying 8 usd what to give back ? > JorgeAmodio:centralized ? great concept for a distributed and open >Internet > Lutz Donnerhacke:centralized "Interface" to access decentalised data > JorgeAmodio:nopet > gpmgroup:I doubt most new gTLDs will retail for $8 or $9 but to answer >the question an amount significant enough to encourage the change people >want > JorgeAmodio:they want to AGREGATE the data and control access to it > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the new tld is the least problem... the >existing data is the big problem to be solved > gpmgroup:@Jorge .info has a centralized whois and that is much easier >to use than the distributed .com model > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:as .xxx explained its costly but they do it > JorgeAmodio:that is part of the distributed nature of the Whois protocol > Lutz Donnerhacke:centralized "databases" fail to comply with varying >local laws > Lutz Donnerhacke:Please distinguish between "centralized access" and >"storage" > JorgeAmodio:sure, forget who is funding ICANN? > Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: Everbody ;-) > JorgeAmodio:follow the money > Rob Golding (othello):@Jorge - registrars fund it (over 95%) just for >the ability to let anyone-at-all to have a say in how we run our business >:p > Alice Jansen:The Review Team is about to wrap up. Please submit your >comments/questions to be read now. > Rudi Vansnick:Lutz : not really everybody ... some ccTLDs are just >paying a very small amount to ICANN compared to the GTLDs > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:Taking the night here... have a nice day >evening night where ever you are located > Lutz Donnerhacke:/me smiles. > JorgeAmodio:problem is that the weeds keep growing > gpmgroup:Thnak you for asking my question and thanks for a very smooth >remote session > Alice Jansen:This session is now closed. Thank you for your >participation. Rest assured that the content of this chat box will be >emailed to the Review Team Members. > Amy Mushahwar:thank you From lutz at iks-jena.de Tue Mar 13 00:23:56 2012 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:23:56 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Interesting example of Privacy and Business In-Reply-To: <20120312103955.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.3b362a8024.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20120312103955.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.3b362a8024.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <20120313002356.GB28133@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:39:55AM -0700, James M. Bladel wrote: > Except we are talking about it, so it didn't really work. :) An an other one: Somebody from a German LKA (Law enforcement agency) contacted me last week with this interesting question: They had lost an identity of a person in a witness protection program by a simple WHOIS query (in this case using an IP WHOIS lookup). So they ask, how can they use "privacy" or "proxy" services which does not point to the police in order to protect their clients? It's also important, that they do not want to have a private company out there, which can correlate those identities with police activities. Currently they simply ask the ISPs and registrars to put in obviously false or no information at all into the WHOIS records. They fear, the have to provide something to "comply" with "new policies of ICANN". BTW: You are doing a fantastic job there. Thank you! From omar at kaminski.adv.br Tue Mar 13 00:55:26 2012 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:55:26 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from ICANN Meeting 43 - La Paz A In-Reply-To: References: <24431679.160993.1331597064348.JavaMail.breezesvc@pacna7app03> Message-ID: Dear Alice, Thanks, you're always helpful. I believe the session transcription could also be useful to us. I forgot to save it, but I believe you have it with you. Thanks in advance, Omar 2012/3/12 Alice Jansen : > Dear Review Team Members, > > > Please find below content of the Adobe room chat box. > Lutz was in the room interacting with remote participants. > Lutz has also me asked me to email you a message: > JUst an "internal" comment. German LAE asks how "proxy/privacy" can be use > to protect identiies in witness protections programms. I urged them to > send in a comment .... > > Thanks, > > Kind regards > > Alice > > > Quote: > On 3/12/12 6:04 PM, "Alice Jansen" wrote: > >> ?Alice Jansen:Welcome to the WHOIS Policy Review Team Session. The >>session will begin shortly. Your comments and questions will be read in >>the room if asked. >> ?Rob Golding (othello):? 6. measure reduction in "unreachable domain >>names" - why does a *domain* have to reachable - or do you means >>something else ? >> ?Olof Nordling:@Rob - will read out your question in the Q&A, if you so >>wish. >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@olof - please - just to clarify the slide - i >>*think* she meant where the registrant isnt (obviously) contactable, but >>thats not how it was worded >> ?Olof Nordling:@Rob - I am confident you are correct in that assumption >>- rather an edit of the slide to be suggested, thus. >> ?gpmgroup:Wby doesn't ICANN offer an incentive to have open & accurate >>WHOIS data? >> ?gpmgroup:Why >> ?Olof Nordling:@gpmgroup - happy to read that one out in the Q&A, OK? >> ?gpmgroup:thanks perhaps I should word it a little less ambigiously >> ?Olof Nordling:listening;-) >> ?Olof Nordling:listening;-) >> ?Omar Kaminski:Feedback from Twitter: "@miltonmueller: Whois Review team >>concludes that most consumers have never heard of Whois. So much for the >>argument that it promotes consumer trust" >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup there are lots of reasons for >>why people don't want all there date public >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:data >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:Still the whois service for .com and .net >>and others like them are a shame and not trustworthy >> ?Rob Golding (othello):? are there recommendations on Criminalising >>misuses of WHOIS data - it took less than 3 days from a new registration >>before spam started arriving at the unique email address I used on the >>domain registration - having such information freely available and public >>is not just a privacy concern but a real issue to normal users who dont >>need a supplier of dodgy pharmaceuticals >> ?gpmgroup:I agree Benny but if there was more incentives then it would >>be an easy (dristibuted) way of cleaning up a large data set >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - each registrar implenets their own whois >>system for com/net as it's thin whois - there are many pros and cons to >>that - pros being keepingyoru client data away from versign, cons being >>no single layout/implementation ?of the data >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@rob one of may reasons >> ?gpmgroup:@ Olof ?Why doesn?t ICANN offer incentives to have open & >>accurate WHOIS? >> ?gpmgroup:lost sound >> ?Amy Mushahwar:Yes, I've lost audio, too. >> ?Rob Golding (othello):its gone silent :( >> ?Olof Nordling:we have notified the tech services >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@Rob, clearly god reasons you state but >>whats the alternative ? >> ?Alice Jansen:Apologies - our Staff is looking into the issue. Please >>refer to the live scribing in the meantime. Thanks for your patience. >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:I mean for a lot of CC tlds its working >>fine >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:@Benny: No Whois at all? >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:anyway there are a lot of them not working >>too >> ?gpmgroup:http://stream.icann.org/sjo43-lapaza-64-en.m3u >> ?gpmgroup:external sound >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - personally I think WHOIS is largely >>pointless and has been for 10 years - in t'old days, when t'interweb was >>run by people who met down the pub on a friday, it was suseful to knwo >>who should be contacted about nameserver changes (the tech contact) - now >>the only person any 3rd party needs realy to contact is the registrar >> ?Rob Golding (othello):is Law-Enforcement have a valid reason to request >>the "real" data behind a registration, subject to approraite paperwork >>they can ask >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Rob: You are seeking for contractual realtionships in >>Whois? Like a thin whois delegation structure? >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So if for any reason as a hosting company >>wants to check an owner for a competing domain or infrigements on >>trademark it shall be hidden ? >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Please send in your questions to the public comment >>list. Otherwise the comments will likly be overseen. >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz - whois as a way of determining availbility >>of a domain is flawed - it's not the right method, and as a way for >>anyone-and-evreyone to ocntact the domain owner - the question really is >>why shoudl a 3rd party have any "right" to contact anyone - i *choose* if >>my phone number is published in a directory, and commercial calls (as >>it's not public) to the number are an *offence* in uk law- why shouldnt >>whois data be the same - fines for people using it incorrectly - if that >>was possible people might bemore inclined to give accurate details >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Please add thsi valueable comment to the list. Let it >>point to proxyy an privacy services >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz - my *personal* opinion is that it's long >>past its "sell by date" and needs to be taken off the protocol list >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@Rob there is a huge difference in someone >>registering microosoft.com and and someone who is given a phonenumber... >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the one registrering a domain is doing >>somethin active for abuse someone elses rights >> ?Alice Jansen:Participants, please let us know whether you would like us >>to read your comments in the room. Thanks >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - and there should be methods to determine >>who that person is - and the _ONLY_ people who would know are teh >>registrar, as it'll be their client >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - but the number od *domain* infringments >>is tiny - much more goes on at the _hosting_ level, which whois doesnt >>help with >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Hosting is easily determined: By looking up the AS >>Number from the BGP Routing entry >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So you would like to hand out data for >>every registrar requesting data? >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz Host != Network :) >> ?gpmgroup:anyone offering commercial services should have to use open >>and accurate WHOIS >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Benny: The AoC is clear: "easy, accurate and complete >>access ..." >> ?gpmgroup:Product launcehs and mergers is a poor excuse >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:gpmgroup: ?Law Enforcement itself need "privacy" for >>protecting their people in the witness protection programms >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup spammers harvesting is a very >>good reason for not giving good data to whois >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:But again: Bring it to the public omment forum. >>Otherwise the discussion is lost. >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@gpmgroup - and across the EU (and other regions) >>thats the requirement for valid details on the _website_ - but the >>_domain_ doenst need to be owned by the organisation using it, and >>in-and-of-itself doesnt need *public* contact information >> ?gpmgroup:@Benny I know and some companies in the domain industry who >>should know better are scraping the whois >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@gpmgroup - you have to "scrape" the whois to get >>the contacts on a transfer ! >> ?Rob Golding (othello):olof - my question ... ? are there >>recommendations on Criminalising misuses of WHOIS data - it took less >>than 3 days from a new registration before spam started arriving at the >>unique email address I used on the domain registration - having such >>information freely available and public is not just a privacy concern but >>a real issue to normal users who dont need a supplier of dodgy >>pharmaceuticals >> ?Olof Nordling:@Rob - I'll get to the end of the queue here and deliver >>that one >> ?JorgeAmodio:good one Milton >> ?gpmgroup:@Rob there's a whole difference between using the WHOIS to >>facilitate a domain transfer and scraping the WHOIS to send out spam >>emails to thousands of third party registrants >> ?JorgeAmodio:sure the users will do a Whois before clicking >> ?JorgeAmodio:consumer DONT KNOW what Whois is >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@pmgroup - i know, but you have to get these >>things in th opene before some fool creates a policy to "ban" scraping of >>whois data ;) >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: MOde users does not know how to even ask a >>whois question (hint: that's the protocol using TCP/43) ... But most does >>not even know about whois at all >> ?JorgeAmodio:0% >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@Jorge - users donteve understand what ssl is - >>thats why phishing scams are so effectn hen they just have a padock on >>teh page noin the browser bar ! >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:That's why the recommendation to provide an "all whois >>web interface" by ICANN exists >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:JUst listen to bill >> ?JorgeAmodio:ha wait need to LOL about that >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: WHy? >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So why is it so difficult to create a >>standard on this, with RFCs for anything else and standards for a lot of >>other things, wy is this so difficult for whois ? >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Benny: Because almost all service uses a different set >>of options, results and languages >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:I should be rather simple imo >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Most ccTLDs ar enot allowed to provide the data by >>local law. >> ?Alice Jansen:Kind reminder: Participants, please let us know if you >>would like your comments to be read in the room. Thanks. >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Then the ODN problem. Can you parse an japanese >>response? >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Sorry, ALice >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:well its just data... so if you have a >>standard it shouldnt be a problem >> ?JorgeAmodio:mike please >> ?Alice Jansen:No need to be sorry, Lutz. You are perfectly free to chat >>with other participants :-). Just wanted to let you know that Olof and I >>are ready to voice your comments/questions if you wish >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the problem is the standard which are non >>existing >> ?JorgeAmodio:nope it is not >> ?JorgeAmodio:no it is not even an imperfect solution >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:let me refrase that.. the problem is the >>standard which are implemented in so many different ways and shall cover >>so many different demands from different lawmakers and registries >> ?JorgeAmodio:its conception had nothing to do for what you are trying to >>use it >> ?JorgeAmodio:useless >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:looking at the statistics for wdrp >>responses and updates it's less than 2 % who cares to look at the whois >>data >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:most registrants don't care.. thats the >>reality here >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:And I am quite sure that most registrars >>are happy as long as the got paid >> ?JorgeAmodio:the ones who care are law enforcement entities >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:from the registrants >> ?gpmgroup:@ Beeny its easy givem a refund so they do care >> ?JorgeAmodio:and IP attorneys trying to find contact info about who to >>sue >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup what kind of refund have you in >>mind? >> ?gpmgroup:Make it more expensive to use privacy if you don't want >>privacy to be widely used , give money back to registrants who verify >>their data >> ?JorgeAmodio:they will pay for privacy that's a fact >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:so lets see selling domains for 9 usd >>paying 8 usd what to give back ? >> ?JorgeAmodio:centralized ? great concept for a distributed and open >>Internet >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:centralized "Interface" to access decentalised data >> ?JorgeAmodio:nopet >> ?gpmgroup:I doubt most new gTLDs will retail for $8 or $9 ?but to answer >>the question an amount significant enough to encourage the change people >>want >> ?JorgeAmodio:they want to AGREGATE the data and control access to it >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the new tld is the least problem... the >>existing data is the big problem to be solved >> ?gpmgroup:@Jorge .info has a centralized whois and that is much easier >>to use than the distributed .com model >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:as .xxx explained its costly but they do it >> ?JorgeAmodio:that is part of the distributed nature of the Whois protocol >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:centralized "databases" fail to comply with varying >>local laws >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Please distinguish between "centralized access" and >>"storage" >> ?JorgeAmodio:sure, forget who is funding ICANN? >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: Everbody ;-) >> ?JorgeAmodio:follow the money >> ?Rob Golding (othello):@Jorge - registrars fund it (over 95%) just for >>the ability to let anyone-at-all to have a say in how we run our business >>:p >> ?Alice Jansen:The Review Team is about to wrap up. Please submit your >>comments/questions to be read now. >> ?Rudi Vansnick:Lutz : not really everybody ... some ccTLDs are just >>paying a very small amount to ICANN compared to the GTLDs >> ?Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:Taking the night here... have a nice day >>evening night where ever you are located >> ?Lutz Donnerhacke:/me smiles. >> ?JorgeAmodio:problem is that the weeds keep growing >> ?gpmgroup:Thnak you for asking my question and thanks for a very smooth >>remote session >> ?Alice Jansen:This session is now closed. Thank you for your >>participation. Rest assured that the content of this chat box will be >>emailed to the Review Team Members. >> ?Amy Mushahwar:thank you > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Mar 13 00:58:05 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:58:05 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from ICANN Meeting 43 - La Paz A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Omar, You are most welcome. The live scribing will be available on the website shortly. Rest assured that I will forward it to the Team as soon as it is ready. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Assistant, Organizational Reviews 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann On 3/12/12 6:55 PM, "Omar Kaminski" wrote: >Dear Alice, > >Thanks, you're always helpful. I believe the session transcription >could also be useful to us. I forgot to save it, but I believe you >have it with you. > >Thanks in advance, > >Omar > > > >2012/3/12 Alice Jansen : >> Dear Review Team Members, >> >> >> Please find below content of the Adobe room chat box. >> Lutz was in the room interacting with remote participants. >> Lutz has also me asked me to email you a message: >> JUst an "internal" comment. German LAE asks how "proxy/privacy" can be >>use >> to protect identiies in witness protections programms. I urged them to >> send in a comment .... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kind regards >> >> Alice >> >> >> Quote: >> On 3/12/12 6:04 PM, "Alice Jansen" wrote: >> >>> Alice Jansen:Welcome to the WHOIS Policy Review Team Session. The >>>session will begin shortly. Your comments and questions will be read in >>>the room if asked. >>> Rob Golding (othello):? 6. measure reduction in "unreachable domain >>>names" - why does a *domain* have to reachable - or do you means >>>something else ? >>> Olof Nordling:@Rob - will read out your question in the Q&A, if you so >>>wish. >>> Rob Golding (othello):@olof - please - just to clarify the slide - i >>>*think* she meant where the registrant isnt (obviously) contactable, but >>>thats not how it was worded >>> Olof Nordling:@Rob - I am confident you are correct in that assumption >>>- rather an edit of the slide to be suggested, thus. >>> gpmgroup:Wby doesn't ICANN offer an incentive to have open & accurate >>>WHOIS data? >>> gpmgroup:Why >>> Olof Nordling:@gpmgroup - happy to read that one out in the Q&A, OK? >>> gpmgroup:thanks perhaps I should word it a little less ambigiously >>> Olof Nordling:listening;-) >>> Olof Nordling:listening;-) >>> Omar Kaminski:Feedback from Twitter: "@miltonmueller: Whois Review >>>team >>>concludes that most consumers have never heard of Whois. So much for the >>>argument that it promotes consumer trust" >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup there are lots of reasons for >>>why people don't want all there date public >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:data >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:Still the whois service for .com and .net >>>and others like them are a shame and not trustworthy >>> Rob Golding (othello):? are there recommendations on Criminalising >>>misuses of WHOIS data - it took less than 3 days from a new registration >>>before spam started arriving at the unique email address I used on the >>>domain registration - having such information freely available and >>>public >>>is not just a privacy concern but a real issue to normal users who dont >>>need a supplier of dodgy pharmaceuticals >>> gpmgroup:I agree Benny but if there was more incentives then it would >>>be an easy (dristibuted) way of cleaning up a large data set >>> Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - each registrar implenets their own >>>whois >>>system for com/net as it's thin whois - there are many pros and cons to >>>that - pros being keepingyoru client data away from versign, cons being >>>no single layout/implementation of the data >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@rob one of may reasons >>> gpmgroup:@ Olof Why doesn?t ICANN offer incentives to have open & >>>accurate WHOIS? >>> gpmgroup:lost sound >>> Amy Mushahwar:Yes, I've lost audio, too. >>> Rob Golding (othello):its gone silent :( >>> Olof Nordling:we have notified the tech services >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@Rob, clearly god reasons you state but >>>whats the alternative ? >>> Alice Jansen:Apologies - our Staff is looking into the issue. Please >>>refer to the live scribing in the meantime. Thanks for your patience. >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:I mean for a lot of CC tlds its working >>>fine >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:@Benny: No Whois at all? >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:anyway there are a lot of them not >>>working >>>too >>> gpmgroup:http://stream.icann.org/sjo43-lapaza-64-en.m3u >>> gpmgroup:external sound >>> Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - personally I think WHOIS is largely >>>pointless and has been for 10 years - in t'old days, when t'interweb was >>>run by people who met down the pub on a friday, it was suseful to knwo >>>who should be contacted about nameserver changes (the tech contact) - >>>now >>>the only person any 3rd party needs realy to contact is the registrar >>> Rob Golding (othello):is Law-Enforcement have a valid reason to >>>request >>>the "real" data behind a registration, subject to approraite paperwork >>>they can ask >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Rob: You are seeking for contractual realtionships in >>>Whois? Like a thin whois delegation structure? >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So if for any reason as a hosting company >>>wants to check an owner for a competing domain or infrigements on >>>trademark it shall be hidden ? >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Please send in your questions to the public comment >>>list. Otherwise the comments will likly be overseen. >>> Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz - whois as a way of determining >>>availbility >>>of a domain is flawed - it's not the right method, and as a way for >>>anyone-and-evreyone to ocntact the domain owner - the question really is >>>why shoudl a 3rd party have any "right" to contact anyone - i *choose* >>>if >>>my phone number is published in a directory, and commercial calls (as >>>it's not public) to the number are an *offence* in uk law- why shouldnt >>>whois data be the same - fines for people using it incorrectly - if that >>>was possible people might bemore inclined to give accurate details >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Please add thsi valueable comment to the list. Let it >>>point to proxyy an privacy services >>> Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz - my *personal* opinion is that it's long >>>past its "sell by date" and needs to be taken off the protocol list >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@Rob there is a huge difference in >>>someone >>>registering microosoft.com and and someone who is given a phonenumber... >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the one registrering a domain is doing >>>somethin active for abuse someone elses rights >>> Alice Jansen:Participants, please let us know whether you would like >>>us >>>to read your comments in the room. Thanks >>> Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - and there should be methods to >>>determine >>>who that person is - and the _ONLY_ people who would know are teh >>>registrar, as it'll be their client >>> Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - but the number od *domain* infringments >>>is tiny - much more goes on at the _hosting_ level, which whois doesnt >>>help with >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Hosting is easily determined: By looking up the AS >>>Number from the BGP Routing entry >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So you would like to hand out data for >>>every registrar requesting data? >>> Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz Host != Network :) >>> gpmgroup:anyone offering commercial services should have to use open >>>and accurate WHOIS >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Benny: The AoC is clear: "easy, accurate and complete >>>access ..." >>> gpmgroup:Product launcehs and mergers is a poor excuse >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:gpmgroup: Law Enforcement itself need "privacy" for >>>protecting their people in the witness protection programms >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup spammers harvesting is a very >>>good reason for not giving good data to whois >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:But again: Bring it to the public omment forum. >>>Otherwise the discussion is lost. >>> Rob Golding (othello):@gpmgroup - and across the EU (and other >>>regions) >>>thats the requirement for valid details on the _website_ - but the >>>_domain_ doenst need to be owned by the organisation using it, and >>>in-and-of-itself doesnt need *public* contact information >>> gpmgroup:@Benny I know and some companies in the domain industry who >>>should know better are scraping the whois >>> Rob Golding (othello):@gpmgroup - you have to "scrape" the whois to >>>get >>>the contacts on a transfer ! >>> Rob Golding (othello):olof - my question ... ? are there >>>recommendations on Criminalising misuses of WHOIS data - it took less >>>than 3 days from a new registration before spam started arriving at the >>>unique email address I used on the domain registration - having such >>>information freely available and public is not just a privacy concern >>>but >>>a real issue to normal users who dont need a supplier of dodgy >>>pharmaceuticals >>> Olof Nordling:@Rob - I'll get to the end of the queue here and deliver >>>that one >>> JorgeAmodio:good one Milton >>> gpmgroup:@Rob there's a whole difference between using the WHOIS to >>>facilitate a domain transfer and scraping the WHOIS to send out spam >>>emails to thousands of third party registrants >>> JorgeAmodio:sure the users will do a Whois before clicking >>> JorgeAmodio:consumer DONT KNOW what Whois is >>> Rob Golding (othello):@pmgroup - i know, but you have to get these >>>things in th opene before some fool creates a policy to "ban" scraping >>>of >>>whois data ;) >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: MOde users does not know how to even ask a >>>whois question (hint: that's the protocol using TCP/43) ... But most >>>does >>>not even know about whois at all >>> JorgeAmodio:0% >>> Rob Golding (othello):@Jorge - users donteve understand what ssl is - >>>thats why phishing scams are so effectn hen they just have a padock on >>>teh page noin the browser bar ! >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:That's why the recommendation to provide an "all >>>whois >>>web interface" by ICANN exists >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:JUst listen to bill >>> JorgeAmodio:ha wait need to LOL about that >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: WHy? >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So why is it so difficult to create a >>>standard on this, with RFCs for anything else and standards for a lot of >>>other things, wy is this so difficult for whois ? >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Benny: Because almost all service uses a different >>>set >>>of options, results and languages >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:I should be rather simple imo >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Most ccTLDs ar enot allowed to provide the data by >>>local law. >>> Alice Jansen:Kind reminder: Participants, please let us know if you >>>would like your comments to be read in the room. Thanks. >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Then the ODN problem. Can you parse an japanese >>>response? >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Sorry, ALice >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:well its just data... so if you have a >>>standard it shouldnt be a problem >>> JorgeAmodio:mike please >>> Alice Jansen:No need to be sorry, Lutz. You are perfectly free to chat >>>with other participants :-). Just wanted to let you know that Olof and I >>>are ready to voice your comments/questions if you wish >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the problem is the standard which are non >>>existing >>> JorgeAmodio:nope it is not >>> JorgeAmodio:no it is not even an imperfect solution >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:let me refrase that.. the problem is the >>>standard which are implemented in so many different ways and shall cover >>>so many different demands from different lawmakers and registries >>> JorgeAmodio:its conception had nothing to do for what you are trying >>>to >>>use it >>> JorgeAmodio:useless >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:looking at the statistics for wdrp >>>responses and updates it's less than 2 % who cares to look at the whois >>>data >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:most registrants don't care.. thats the >>>reality here >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:And I am quite sure that most registrars >>>are happy as long as the got paid >>> JorgeAmodio:the ones who care are law enforcement entities >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:from the registrants >>> gpmgroup:@ Beeny its easy givem a refund so they do care >>> JorgeAmodio:and IP attorneys trying to find contact info about who to >>>sue >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup what kind of refund have you in >>>mind? >>> gpmgroup:Make it more expensive to use privacy if you don't want >>>privacy to be widely used , give money back to registrants who verify >>>their data >>> JorgeAmodio:they will pay for privacy that's a fact >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:so lets see selling domains for 9 usd >>>paying 8 usd what to give back ? >>> JorgeAmodio:centralized ? great concept for a distributed and open >>>Internet >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:centralized "Interface" to access decentalised data >>> JorgeAmodio:nopet >>> gpmgroup:I doubt most new gTLDs will retail for $8 or $9 but to >>>answer >>>the question an amount significant enough to encourage the change people >>>want >>> JorgeAmodio:they want to AGREGATE the data and control access to it >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the new tld is the least problem... the >>>existing data is the big problem to be solved >>> gpmgroup:@Jorge .info has a centralized whois and that is much easier >>>to use than the distributed .com model >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:as .xxx explained its costly but they do >>>it >>> JorgeAmodio:that is part of the distributed nature of the Whois >>>protocol >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:centralized "databases" fail to comply with varying >>>local laws >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Please distinguish between "centralized access" and >>>"storage" >>> JorgeAmodio:sure, forget who is funding ICANN? >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: Everbody ;-) >>> JorgeAmodio:follow the money >>> Rob Golding (othello):@Jorge - registrars fund it (over 95%) just for >>>the ability to let anyone-at-all to have a say in how we run our >>>business >>>:p >>> Alice Jansen:The Review Team is about to wrap up. Please submit your >>>comments/questions to be read now. >>> Rudi Vansnick:Lutz : not really everybody ... some ccTLDs are just >>>paying a very small amount to ICANN compared to the GTLDs >>> Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:Taking the night here... have a nice day >>>evening night where ever you are located >>> Lutz Donnerhacke:/me smiles. >>> JorgeAmodio:problem is that the weeds keep growing >>> gpmgroup:Thnak you for asking my question and thanks for a very smooth >>>remote session >>> Alice Jansen:This session is now closed. Thank you for your >>>participation. Rest assured that the content of this chat box will be >>>emailed to the Review Team Members. >>> Amy Mushahwar:thank you >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Mar 13 01:15:08 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:15:08 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chat content (more user-friendly version) + link to material Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, I have created a Word version of the chat content that - I believe - is more user?friendly. You will find it attached. Note that your sessions' recordings, transcripts, chat contents and slides are available on your San Jose page at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/San+Jose+Meeting Rest assured that I will email you the scribe feed of your session today as soon as it gets posted. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Assistant, Organizational Reviews 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/7384091f/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Policy RT - Interaction with the Cty - Mon, 12 March.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 145843 bytes Desc: WHOIS Policy RT - Interaction with the Cty - Mon, 12 March.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/7384091f/WHOISPolicyRT-InteractionwiththeCty-Mon12March.docx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Policy RT - Interaction with the Cty - Mon, 12 March.pdf Type: application/x-msword Size: 71502 bytes Desc: WHOIS Policy RT - Interaction with the Cty - Mon, 12 March.pdf Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/7384091f/WHOISPolicyRT-InteractionwiththeCty-Mon12March.pdf From omar at kaminski.adv.br Tue Mar 13 02:12:58 2012 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:12:58 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Some pics, thanks to Alice :) Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DSC01406.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 233285 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/69016a42/DSC01406.JPG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DSC01409.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 219229 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/69016a42/DSC01409.JPG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DSC01411.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 216034 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/69016a42/DSC01411.JPG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DSC01412.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 203444 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/69016a42/DSC01412.JPG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DSC01413.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 231017 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/69016a42/DSC01413.JPG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DSC01414.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 228058 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/69016a42/DSC01414.JPG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DSC01417.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 263111 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120312/69016a42/DSC01417.JPG From sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Tue Mar 13 09:40:38 2012 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (LEMON, Sharon) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:40:38 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Some pics, thanks to Alice :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C73D2D5B7@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -- Converted from text/plain format --> You all look very professional!. Regards from sunny London and best wishes and good luck to you all. Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Omar Kaminski Sent: 13 March 2012 02:13 To: rt4-whois Subject: [Rt4-whois] Some pics, thanks to Alice :) All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue Mar 13 12:09:54 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 05:09:54 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] TUESDAY - Where do I need to be today? Message-ID: 11:00-12:00 -- WHOIS Review Team - GAC meeting - Orquideas Description: Meeting between GAC and WHOIS Review Team to discuss the recommendations (following up on overviews already given) Agenda: Discussion of specific recommendations and implementation 1. Brief outline of the WHOIS Review Team'sfindings & recommendations 2. Discussion following from the WHOIS RT- GAC webinar held on 14 February 2012 and (ET) and (JB)'s discussions in Brussels on 7 February 2012 3. Q&A & additional discussion 4. Public comment period & final report ---------- -- 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/20120313/3a7078ed/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Tue Mar 13 13:05:26 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:05:26 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Some pics, thanks to Alice :) In-Reply-To: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C73D2D5B7@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> References: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C73D2D5B7@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: Missing you Sharon, but met Benedict yesterday who is very good, nice guy too, and making an impact with his data verification matrix. On Tuesday, March 13, 2012, LEMON, Sharon wrote: > > > NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED > > -- Converted from text/plain format --> > > > > You all look very professional!. Regards from sunny London and best > wishes and good luck to you all. > > Sharon > > Sharon LEMON OBE > Deputy Director > Cyber and Forensics > Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) > 07768 290902 > 0207 855 2800 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Omar Kaminski > Sent: 13 March 2012 02:13 > To: rt4-whois > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Some pics, thanks to Alice :) > > > > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > > This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120313/60d32cea/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Tue Mar 13 13:48:39 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:48:39 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Some pics, thanks to Alice :) In-Reply-To: References: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C73D2D5B7@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: <70DE63DA-115B-4453-88AB-2FECF3A88634@paypal.com> We need captions for the "lineup". On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:05 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: Missing you Sharon, but met Benedict yesterday who is very good, nice guy too, and making an impact with his data verification matrix. On Tuesday, March 13, 2012, LEMON, Sharon > wrote: > > > NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED > > -- Converted from text/plain format --> > > > > You all look very professional!. Regards from sunny London and best > wishes and good luck to you all. > > Sharon > > Sharon LEMON OBE > Deputy Director > Cyber and Forensics > Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) > 07768 290902 > 0207 855 2800 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Omar Kaminski > Sent: 13 March 2012 02:13 > To: rt4-whois > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Some pics, thanks to Alice :) > > > > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > > This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu 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 kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Mar 13 11:58:30 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:58:30 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Some pics, thanks to Alice :) In-Reply-To: References: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C73D2D5B7@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: <4F5F3666.6030301@kathykleiman.com> Hi Sharon, We greatly miss you - and Lutz and Lynn! I wanted to share that Benedict absolutely created the "moment" of the meeting right at the end of the RAA session. I'll let him tell you about -- as he will remember all the words spoken -- but it took an entire serious, even difficult room, and everyone started to laugh and smile! Now that takes some doing at ICANN :-)! Glad to you hear you have some sun too, Kathy > Missing you Sharon, but met Benedict yesterday who is very good, nice > guy too, and making an impact with his data verification matrix. > > On Tuesday, March 13, 2012, LEMON, Sharon > > wrote: > > > > > > NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED > > > > -- Converted from text/plain format --> > > > > > > > > You all look very professional!. Regards from sunny London and best > > wishes and good luck to you all. > > > > Sharon > > > > Sharon LEMON OBE > > Deputy Director > > Cyber and Forensics > > Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) > > 07768 290902 > > 0207 855 2800 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > > [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org ] > > On Behalf Of Omar Kaminski > > Sent: 13 March 2012 02:13 > > To: rt4-whois > > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Some pics, thanks to Alice :) > > > > > > > > > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to > assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private > and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be > passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within > SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for > analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended > solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you > have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon > as possible. > > > > > > > > This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt > from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also > be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure > may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. > Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI > single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk > or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. > > > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to > assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private > and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be > passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within > SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for > analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended > solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you > have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon > as possible. > > > > > > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government > Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless > Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number > 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. > > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored > and/or recorded for legal purposes. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120313/e104c56d/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Mar 13 12:00:33 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Interesting example of Privacy and Business In-Reply-To: <20120313002356.GB28133@belenus.iks-jena.de> References: <20120312103955.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.3b362a8024.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> <20120313002356.GB28133@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: <4F5F36E1.5030804@kathykleiman.com> Dear Lutz, Thanks for your email, and thanks so much for leading in the chat room yesterday during the Public Forum. I am so glad we had a voice responding in real time there too, much appreciated! Kathy : > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:39:55AM -0700, James M. Bladel wrote: >> Except we are talking about it, so it didn't really work. :) > An an other one: Somebody from a German LKA (Law enforcement agency) > contacted me last week with this interesting question: > > They had lost an identity of a person in a witness protection program by a > simple WHOIS query (in this case using an IP WHOIS lookup). So they ask, how > can they use "privacy" or "proxy" services which does not point to the > police in order to protect their clients? > > It's also important, that they do not want to have a private company out > there, which can correlate those identities with police activities. > > Currently they simply ask the ISPs and registrars to put in obviously false > or no information at all into the WHOIS records. They fear, the have to > provide something to "comply" with "new policies of ICANN". > > BTW: You are doing a fantastic job there. Thank you! > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Mar 14 02:06:06 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:06:06 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] GALA - Wed, 14 March Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please see below gala details (also available at: http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29753) Kindly note that tickets will be handed out tomorrow. Please go to the booth area to collect your gala ticket. Your badge will be required to receive a ticket and to enter the gala venue. The shuttle timetable will be available at the booth. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions. Thanks, Kind regards Alice ------ Overview The National Academy of Sciences and its unit NIC Costa Rica have the pleasure to invite you to the Gala Dinner of the ICANN 43 Meeting. We will enjoy a memorable night in a Rain Forrest atmosphere that we will mood in the Montezuma Hall, at the Centro de Eventos Pedregal. Where: Centro de Eventos Pedregal, San Antonio de Bel?n Dress Code: Semi-formal, tennis is not allowed How to go: Bus transportation available starting at 5:00 pm from the Ramada Plaza Herradura Hotel on the north side of the Conference Center located at the Hotel entrance. Do NOT FORGET your badge! Agenda Details: Welcome cocktail: from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm Musical show with Editus and acrobats: 7:30 pm Gala Dinner: from 7:45 pm to 9:00 pm Philharmonic National Orchestra: from 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm -- 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/20120313/685a35ab/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Mar 14 13:09:16 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:09:16 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WEDNESDAY - Where do I need to be today? Message-ID: Wednesday 08:00-17:00 -- WHOIS Policy Review Team Meeting - Girasol 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, 16:30-18:00 or through its public comment box at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05dec11-en.htm --- 09:15-10:15 -- WHOIS Review Team - Board of Directors meeting - Tiffany's Description: Meeting Between the Board & the WHOIS Policy Review Team to provide input into the draft report Agenda: Discussion of specific recommendations and implementation (following up on Board webinar of 29 February 2012) --- 11:00-12:30 -- Consumer Trust - Heliconia - http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29645 Description: This is a public meeting of the GNSO Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition Drafting Team (CCTC-DT) Agenda: A discussion of the recent posting in the Public Forum of the CCTC-DT's draft Advise Letter and related measures and metrics. -- 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/20120314/f5808b7b/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Schedule + Agendas - WHOIS Policy RT.pdf Type: application/x-msword Size: 107668 bytes Desc: Schedule + Agendas - WHOIS Policy RT.pdf Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120314/f5808b7b/ScheduleAgendas-WHOISPolicyRT.pdf From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Mar 14 12:54:05 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:54:05 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Rule of law Safeguards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F6094ED.3010209@kathykleiman.com> Dear All, We have received the following comment from a member of the GNSO from the IP/Business community that I wanted to bring to your attention. Tx you! Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Rule of law Safeguards Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:06:46 -0600 From: Zahid Jamil To: whois-rt-draft-final-report at icann.org CC: olof.nordling at icann.org Dear WHOIS RT, A thought regarding the mention of "applicable law". There are some jurisdictions that may not incorporate certain internationally accepted safeguards with respect to law enforcement and regulatory powers. Instead of possibly leaving this open to arbitrary discretion and powers where such protections and safeguards may not fully exist, it may be useful to mention international standards with respect to safeguards in the exercise of procedural and other powers wielded by regulatory or law enforcement authorities such as that which appear in the only existing internationally binding instrument on cybercrime i.e. The Budapest Convention on cybercrime inter alia: Article 15 Conditions & Safeguards 1 Each Party shall ensure that the establishment, implementation and application of the powers and procedures provided for in this Section are subject to conditions and safeguards provided for under its domestic law, which shall provide for the adequate protection of human rights and liberties, including rights arising pursuant to obligations it has undertaken under the 1950 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other applicable international human rights instruments, and which shall incorporate the principle of proportionality. 2 Such conditions and safeguards shall, as appropriate in view of the nature of the procedure or power concerned, /inter alia,/ include judicial or other independent supervision, grounds justifying application, and limitation of the scope and the duration of such power or procedure. 3 To the extent that it is consistent with the public interest, in particular the sound administration of justice, each Party shall consider the impact of the powers and procedures in this section upon the rights, responsibilities and legitimate interests of third parties. Thank you for your the opportunity to comment and your kind consideration. Best regards, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120314/2c2cb5d3/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed Mar 14 15:00:30 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:00:30 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Congrats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >From Rod His congratulations and a comment Kind regards Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rod Beckstrom Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Subject: Congrats To: Emily Taylor Cc: Chris Mondini , Alice Jansen < alice.jansen at icann.org> On the solid progress with the Whois report. I have heard numerous positive comments from the community. I do think you might consider suggesting in the report that the ccNSO consider the same recommendations you make for the gTLDs. I apologize that I will not be able to come to your 9:30 AM meeting this morning with the board as I have other meetings to attend to. Thanks again Emily and please give my best to the team! Rod -- * * 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/20120314/f3945b81/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Mar 14 16:47:41 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:47:41 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Transcript - Interaction with Community In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the transcript of your Interaction with the Community session held on Monday, 12 March. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120314/44aca113/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: COSTA RICA - WHOIS Review Team-en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 296235 bytes Desc: COSTA RICA - WHOIS Review Team-en.pdf Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120314/44aca113/COSTARICA-WHOISReviewTeam-en.pdf From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Mar 14 15:08:28 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: [ICANN Social] Gala tickets + passes (lanyards) are being... In-Reply-To: <37564a045bfe63f426607dc9199fa7e0@async.facebook.com> References: <37564a045bfe63f426607dc9199fa7e0@async.facebook.com> Message-ID: <4F60B46C.2090506@kathykleiman.com> FYI -- from another list. Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ICANN Social] Gala tickets + passes (lanyards) are being... Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:36:33 -0700 From: Michele Neylon Reply-To: Reply to Comment To: ICANN Social Michele Neylon posted in ICANN Social . Gala tickets + passes (lanyards) are being... Michele Neylon 10:36am Mar 14 Gala tickets + passes (lanyards) are being distributed at the .cr desk on the ground floor of the main building (ie. below the exhibition space) View Post on Facebook ? Edit Email Settings ? Reply to this email to add a comment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120314/140b5ea8/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Mar 14 19:02:58 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:02:58 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] PLEASE NOTE: GALA - Wed, 14 March In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, I have just been informed that the hosts may not have enough tickets for all participants. The meetings team strongly advises you to fetch your tickets as soon as possible. The hosts are checking people in by name and everyone has to pick up their own tickets. Apologies for this last minute notification. Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Alice Jansen > Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:06:06 -0700 To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: GALA - Wed, 14 March Dear Review Team Members, Please see below gala details (also available at: http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29753) Kindly note that tickets will be handed out tomorrow. Please go to the booth area to collect your gala ticket. Your badge will be required to receive a ticket and to enter the gala venue. The shuttle timetable will be available at the booth. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions. Thanks, Kind regards Alice ------ Overview The National Academy of Sciences and its unit NIC Costa Rica have the pleasure to invite you to the Gala Dinner of the ICANN 43 Meeting. We will enjoy a memorable night in a Rain Forrest atmosphere that we will mood in the Montezuma Hall, at the Centro de Eventos Pedregal. Where: Centro de Eventos Pedregal, San Antonio de Bel?n Dress Code: Semi-formal, tennis is not allowed How to go: Bus transportation available starting at 5:00 pm from the Ramada Plaza Herradura Hotel on the north side of the Conference Center located at the Hotel entrance. Do NOT FORGET your badge! Agenda Details: Welcome cocktail: from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm Musical show with Editus and acrobats: 7:30 pm Gala Dinner: from 7:45 pm to 9:00 pm Philharmonic National Orchestra: from 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm -- 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/20120314/6e6416ea/attachment.html From denise.michel at icann.org Wed Mar 14 20:15:29 2012 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:15:29 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost Message-ID: The NORC Accuracy Study involved a sample size of 1000 registrations, and cost ICANN approximately US$200,000. 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/20120314/a9341964/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Mar 14 20:29:07 2012 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:29:07 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost Message-ID: <20120314132907.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.e10099da57.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120314/a49721a7/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Mar 14 21:50:40 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:50:40 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Transcript from Board-WHOIS Review Team Session - Costa Rica 43 - 14 March 2012 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the transcript of your meeting with the ICANN Board. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120314/4c859b46/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2012-03-14 ICANN Board_WHOIS Review Team_Session_Costa Rica 43.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 158569 bytes Desc: 2012-03-14 ICANN Board_WHOIS Review Team_Session_Costa Rica 43.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120314/4c859b46/2012-03-14ICANNBoard_WHOISReviewTeam_Session_CostaRica43.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed Mar 14 22:45:17 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:45:17 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance numbers Message-ID: Hi Denise During our call to staff the other week, we asked for numbers of compliance staff over time since 2007 (?) when the team was set up. We asked for names, but JJ suggested numbers instead- that is fine. Please would you split out permanent staff, temps/contract staff and vacant positions. Many thanks, 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/20120314/a8f3ffde/attachment.html From denise.michel at icann.org Wed Mar 14 23:09:24 2012 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:09:24 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance numbers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Emily. I just pinged them on this again today and will let you know when it will be delivered. 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 Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Emily Taylor wrote: > Hi Denise > > During our call to staff the other week, we asked for numbers of > compliance staff over time since 2007 (?) when the team was set up. We > asked for names, but JJ suggested numbers instead- that is fine. Please > would you split out permanent staff, temps/contract staff and vacant > positions. > > Many thanks, > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120314/f4fdda35/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Mar 15 00:17:34 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:17:34 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost In-Reply-To: <20120314132907.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.e10099da57.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> References: <20120314132907.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.e10099da57.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <3D51682D-6498-4F0B-9D55-574834CFA265@paypal.com> Agreed... but it's a small amount if it manages to reduce the 2-3 billion dollars of e-commerce fraud that Visa projected in its presentation at the RAA update/WHOIS Verification Workshop on Monday. On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:29 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: Thanks, Denise. IMHO, that's a pretty significant expense on an annual basis. J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: NORC Study cost From: Denise Michel > Date: Wed, March 14, 2012 3:15 pm To: "James M. Bladel" > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org The NORC Accuracy Study involved a sample size of 1000 registrations, and cost ICANN approximately US$200,000. Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Mar 15 00:58:03 2012 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (jbladel at godaddy.com) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:58:03 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost Message-ID: <20120314175803.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6b6f4213d5.mailapi@mailapi00.secureserver.net> So the eCommerce Industry should reimburse ICANN? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com> Date: Mar 14, 2012 18:18 To: "James M. Bladel" CC: denise.michel at icann.org,rt4-whois at icann.org Agreed... but it's a small amount if it manages to reduce the 2-3 billion dollars of e-commerce fraud that Visa projected in its presentation at the RAA update/WHOIS Verification Workshop on Monday. On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:29 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: Thanks, Denise. IMHO, that's a pretty significant expense on an annual basis. J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: NORC Study cost From: Denise Michel > Date: Wed, March 14, 2012 3:15 pm To: "James M. Bladel" > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org The NORC Accuracy Study involved a sample size of 1000 registrations, and cost ICANN approximately US$200,000. Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From omar at kaminski.adv.br Thu Mar 15 02:56:37 2012 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:56:37 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Domain Registrar Confirms New Pirate Bay Investigation Message-ID: FYI: http://torrentfreak.com/domain-registrar-confirms-new-pirate-bay-investigation-120314/ ?We will not share any information about our customers until there is a court order, or when a prosecutor can refer to an applicable law. In this case, we have answered the questions with information that?s already available through Whois services.? Best, Omar From susank at fb.com Thu Mar 15 04:05:00 2012 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:05:00 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost In-Reply-To: <20120314175803.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6b6f4213d5.mailapi@mailapi00.secureserver.net> References: <20120314175803.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6b6f4213d5.mailapi@mailapi00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: That seems reasonable to me! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:58 PM, "jbladel at godaddy.com" wrote: > So the eCommerce Industry should reimburse ICANN? > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost > From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com> > Date: Mar 14, 2012 18:18 > To: "James M. Bladel" > CC: denise.michel at icann.org,rt4-whois at icann.org > > Agreed... but it's a small amount if it manages to reduce the 2-3 billion dollars of e-commerce fraud that Visa projected in its presentation at the RAA update/WHOIS Verification Workshop on Monday. > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:29 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: > > Thanks, Denise. IMHO, that's a pretty significant expense on an annual basis. > > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: NORC Study cost > From: Denise Michel > > Date: Wed, March 14, 2012 3:15 pm > To: "James M. Bladel" > > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > > The NORC Accuracy Study involved a sample size of 1000 registrations, and cost ICANN approximately US$200,000. > > > Denise Michel > ICANN > Advisor to the President & CEO > denise.michel at icann.org > +1.408.429.3072 mobile > +1.310.578.8632 direct > _______________________________________________ > 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 bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Mar 15 04:13:09 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:13:09 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost In-Reply-To: <20120314175803.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6b6f4213d5.mailapi@mailapi00.secureserver.net> References: <20120314175803.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6b6f4213d5.mailapi@mailapi00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Probably happy to pay $200,000 a year to get Whois cleaned up, perhaps more. On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:58 PM, wrote: > So the eCommerce Industry should reimburse ICANN? > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost > From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com> > Date: Mar 14, 2012 18:18 > To: "James M. Bladel" > CC: denise.michel at icann.org,rt4-whois at icann.org > > Agreed... but it's a small amount if it manages to reduce the 2-3 billion dollars of e-commerce fraud that Visa projected in its presentation at the RAA update/WHOIS Verification Workshop on Monday. > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:29 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: > > Thanks, Denise. IMHO, that's a pretty significant expense on an annual basis. > > J. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: NORC Study cost > From: Denise Michel > > Date: Wed, March 14, 2012 3:15 pm > To: "James M. Bladel" > > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > > The NORC Accuracy Study involved a sample size of 1000 registrations, and cost ICANN approximately US$200,000. > > > Denise Michel > ICANN > Advisor to the President & CEO > denise.michel at icann.org > +1.408.429.3072 mobile > +1.310.578.8632 direct > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From denise.michel at icann.org Thu Mar 15 04:44:22 2012 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:44:22 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost In-Reply-To: References: <20120314175803.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6b6f4213d5.mailapi@mailapi00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear Team members, A correction: the 2009 NORC study involved a sample size of 1400 (rather than 1000). Since some Team members seemed interested, Staff did some inquiries. The annual cost of such a study likely would be moderately less if the previous methodology and sample design were maintained. It is estimated that most of the accuracy study recurring cost is calling registrants for verification, and at least one-third of the original study cost was establishing a methodology and sample design. So a very rough, informal estimate of repeating the study for 1000 domains is about US$110,000. Please let me know if you need additional information. 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 Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Smith, Bill wrote: > Probably happy to pay $200,000 a year to get Whois cleaned up, perhaps > more. > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:58 PM, > wrote: > > > So the eCommerce Industry should reimburse ICANN? > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost > > From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com> > > Date: Mar 14, 2012 18:18 > > To: "James M. Bladel" > > CC: denise.michel at icann.org,rt4-whois at icann.org > > > > Agreed... but it's a small amount if it manages to reduce the 2-3 > billion dollars of e-commerce fraud that Visa projected in its presentation > at the RAA update/WHOIS Verification Workshop on Monday. > > > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:29 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: > > > > Thanks, Denise. IMHO, that's a pretty significant expense on an annual > basis. > > > > J. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: NORC Study cost > > From: Denise Michel denise.michel at icann.org>> > > Date: Wed, March 14, 2012 3:15 pm > > To: "James M. Bladel" > > > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > > > > The NORC Accuracy Study involved a sample size of 1000 registrations, > and cost ICANN approximately US$200,000. > > > > > > Denise Michel > > ICANN > > Advisor to the President & CEO > > denise.michel at icann.org > > +1.408.429.3072 mobile > > +1.310.578.8632 direct > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20120314/31d4db46/attachment.html From lutz at iks-jena.de Thu Mar 15 08:43:00 2012 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:43:00 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] NORC Study cost In-Reply-To: References: <20120314175803.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6b6f4213d5.mailapi@mailapi00.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <20120315084300.GB22523@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:44:22PM -0600, Denise Michel wrote: > So a very rough, informal estimate of repeating the study for 1000 domains > is about US$110,000. It seems still a very high price for the investigation. Regular market should not exceed about US$2500 per day for this type of consulting. Simple arithmetics results to 45 days of work or 22 checked domains per day or 160 minutes per domain. Given the outcome of the study, there is a huge mismatch between printed version and expectations. At least my "non professional" point of view. From alice.jansen at icann.org Thu Mar 15 13:18:43 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:18:43 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Departure Tax! Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please be kindly to pay your departure tax before you leave. It is highly recommended that you pay the airport departure tax at the Ramada/or your hotel (the concierge should offer you that service) in order to avoid long and messy queues at the airport. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Assistant, Organizational Reviews 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120315/62e084dc/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Thu Mar 15 22:44:52 2012 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:44:52 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report In-Reply-To: <20120315223744.GE19026@crankycanuck.ca> References: <20120315223744.GE19026@crankycanuck.ca> Message-ID: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5AE3@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Review Team Members, Please find some offline comments to the report, received today, for your attention and considerations. Very best regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at crankycanuck.ca] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38 PM To: Olof Nordling Subject: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Dear Mr Nordling, In my public posting commenting on the recent WHOIS review team report, I mentioned that I found some nits. I'm sending them to you as the staff support for the team. These are some (occasionally very serious) technical errors that I found while reading the Whois Policy Review Team report. I didn't include them in my public posting because I thought they might distract from the more substantive issues I wanted to focus on there. But I urge the team to fix these errors; they seriously undermine the credibility of the report. Please feel free to share this mail as widely as you wish. - The description of domain names in the Executive Summary is either completely wrong, or a mistaken and misleading attempt to gloss over complexities about the DNS name space. This might not matter except that, if people are to take seriously proposals for better management of domain name registration data, the details of what a domain name is really need to be correct. Rather than fixing this, the entire passage might be removed without any harm: someone who cannot already recognize a DNS name will probably not care about WHOIS at all. - The introduction of WHOIS at the end of section B seems to suggest that WHOIS is for domain name registration data; but the WHOIS protocol has also historically been used for number resources (as Appendix G states), and that history may be part of the reason why the protocol has some of the limitations it has. This could be fixed with a minor adjustment to the description. - The mention of alternatives to the WHOIS protocol in Chapter 5 (footnote 17, page 44) talks about CRISP. But CRISP is not a protocol, and RFC 3707 is in fact a requirements document -- one that, if its specification were met, would address many of the issues with the WHOIS protocol and permit a better service. The IRIS protocol (RFC 3982) was the development that followed from the CRISP requirements. The narrow issue could be fixed by altering the reference. (At a more substantive level, IRIS was what resulted the last time the Internet community determined that WHOIS was not the answer to registration data problems, and the report might be stronger if it explored why those previous attempts to replace WHOIS did not succeed.) In Appendix G: - The example IP address is not in any normal presentation format for IP addresses, and it is very hard to see how it could be an IP address in any of the more obscure ways of writing IP addresses. - DNS is not only used to translate names to numbers. - The entire discussion of whois lookup in a thin-registry context ignores the way whois referral works, and appears to suggest that people who do not know how to operate the tool ought to be able to operate it without learning how. In Appendix H: - The definitions of A-label and LDH-label most certainly do not overlap. - WHOIS was not originally specified in RFC 954, but in RFC 812, published in 1982. Best regards, Andrew -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at crankycanuck.ca From kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu Mar 15 20:50:39 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5AE3@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <20120315223744.GE19026@crankycanuck.ca> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5AE3@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <4F62561F.5000005@kathykleiman.com> Thanks Olof, could you kindly post these comments to our public comment box? Tx you and so many thanks for all your help and support and guidance, Kathy : > Dear Review Team Members, > Please find some offline comments to the report, received today, for your attention and considerations. > Very best regards > Olof > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at crankycanuck.ca] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38 PM > To: Olof Nordling > Subject: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report > > Dear Mr Nordling, > > In my public posting commenting on the recent WHOIS review team report, I mentioned that I found some nits. I'm sending them to you as the staff support for the team. These are some (occasionally very > serious) technical errors that I found while reading the Whois Policy Review Team report. I didn't include them in my public posting because I thought they might distract from the more substantive issues I wanted to focus on there. But I urge the team to fix these errors; they seriously undermine the credibility of the report. Please feel free to share this mail as widely as you wish. > > - The description of domain names in the Executive Summary is > either completely wrong, or a mistaken and misleading attempt to > gloss over complexities about the DNS name space. This might not > matter except that, if people are to take seriously proposals for > better management of domain name registration data, the details of > what a domain name is really need to be correct. Rather than > fixing this, the entire passage might be removed without any harm: > someone who cannot already recognize a DNS name will probably not > care about WHOIS at all. > > - The introduction of WHOIS at the end of section B seems to > suggest that WHOIS is for domain name registration data; but the > WHOIS protocol has also historically been used for number > resources (as Appendix G states), and that history may be part of > the reason why the protocol has some of the limitations it has. > This could be fixed with a minor adjustment to the description. > > - The mention of alternatives to the WHOIS protocol in Chapter 5 > (footnote 17, page 44) talks about CRISP. But CRISP is not a > protocol, and RFC 3707 is in fact a requirements document -- one > that, if its specification were met, would address many of the > issues with the WHOIS protocol and permit a better service. The > IRIS protocol (RFC 3982) was the development that followed from > the CRISP requirements. The narrow issue could be fixed by > altering the reference. (At a more substantive level, IRIS was > what resulted the last time the Internet community determined that > WHOIS was not the answer to registration data problems, and the > report might be stronger if it explored why those previous > attempts to replace WHOIS did not succeed.) > > In Appendix G: > > - The example IP address is not in any normal presentation format > for IP addresses, and it is very hard to see how it could be an IP > address in any of the more obscure ways of writing IP addresses. > > - DNS is not only used to translate names to numbers. > > - The entire discussion of whois lookup in a thin-registry context > ignores the way whois referral works, and appears to suggest that > people who do not know how to operate the tool ought to be able to > operate it without learning how. > > In Appendix H: > > - The definitions of A-label and LDH-label most certainly do not > overlap. > > - WHOIS was not originally specified in RFC 954, but in RFC 812, > published in 1982. > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs at crankycanuck.ca > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From olof.nordling at icann.org Thu Mar 15 22:54:11 2012 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:54:11 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report In-Reply-To: <4F62561F.5000005@kathykleiman.com> References: <20120315223744.GE19026@crankycanuck.ca> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5AE3@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F62561F.5000005@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5AEA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi Kathy, I think that would be inappropriate, given the commenter's decision NOT to convey it by using the public comments box.... Best Olof -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:51 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Thanks Olof, could you kindly post these comments to our public comment box? Tx you and so many thanks for all your help and support and guidance, Kathy : > Dear Review Team Members, > Please find some offline comments to the report, received today, for your attention and considerations. > Very best regards > Olof > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at crankycanuck.ca] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38 PM > To: Olof Nordling > Subject: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report > > Dear Mr Nordling, > > In my public posting commenting on the recent WHOIS review team > report, I mentioned that I found some nits. I'm sending them to you > as the staff support for the team. These are some (occasionally very > serious) technical errors that I found while reading the Whois Policy Review Team report. I didn't include them in my public posting because I thought they might distract from the more substantive issues I wanted to focus on there. But I urge the team to fix these errors; they seriously undermine the credibility of the report. Please feel free to share this mail as widely as you wish. > > - The description of domain names in the Executive Summary is > either completely wrong, or a mistaken and misleading attempt to > gloss over complexities about the DNS name space. This might not > matter except that, if people are to take seriously proposals for > better management of domain name registration data, the details of > what a domain name is really need to be correct. Rather than > fixing this, the entire passage might be removed without any harm: > someone who cannot already recognize a DNS name will probably not > care about WHOIS at all. > > - The introduction of WHOIS at the end of section B seems to > suggest that WHOIS is for domain name registration data; but the > WHOIS protocol has also historically been used for number > resources (as Appendix G states), and that history may be part of > the reason why the protocol has some of the limitations it has. > This could be fixed with a minor adjustment to the description. > > - The mention of alternatives to the WHOIS protocol in Chapter 5 > (footnote 17, page 44) talks about CRISP. But CRISP is not a > protocol, and RFC 3707 is in fact a requirements document -- one > that, if its specification were met, would address many of the > issues with the WHOIS protocol and permit a better service. The > IRIS protocol (RFC 3982) was the development that followed from > the CRISP requirements. The narrow issue could be fixed by > altering the reference. (At a more substantive level, IRIS was > what resulted the last time the Internet community determined that > WHOIS was not the answer to registration data problems, and the > report might be stronger if it explored why those previous > attempts to replace WHOIS did not succeed.) > > In Appendix G: > > - The example IP address is not in any normal presentation format > for IP addresses, and it is very hard to see how it could be an IP > address in any of the more obscure ways of writing IP addresses. > > - DNS is not only used to translate names to numbers. > > - The entire discussion of whois lookup in a thin-registry context > ignores the way whois referral works, and appears to suggest that > people who do not know how to operate the tool ought to be able to > operate it without learning how. > > In Appendix H: > > - The definitions of A-label and LDH-label most certainly do not > overlap. > > - WHOIS was not originally specified in RFC 954, but in RFC 812, > published in 1982. > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs at crankycanuck.ca > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Mar 15 20:58:30 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:58:30 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5AEA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <20120315223744.GE19026@crankycanuck.ca> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5AE3@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F62561F.5000005@kathykleiman.com> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5AEA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <4F6257F6.2010907@kathykleiman.com> I see what you mean, tx Olof! : > Hi Kathy, > I think that would be inappropriate, given the commenter's decision NOT to convey it by using the public comments box.... > Best > Olof > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:51 PM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report > Thanks Olof, could you kindly post these comments to our public comment box? > Tx you and so many thanks for all your help and support and guidance, Kathy > > : >> Dear Review Team Members, >> Please find some offline comments to the report, received today, for your attention and considerations. >> Very best regards >> Olof >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at crankycanuck.ca] >> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38 PM >> To: Olof Nordling >> Subject: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report >> >> Dear Mr Nordling, >> >> In my public posting commenting on the recent WHOIS review team >> report, I mentioned that I found some nits. I'm sending them to you >> as the staff support for the team. These are some (occasionally very >> serious) technical errors that I found while reading the Whois Policy Review Team report. I didn't include them in my public posting because I thought they might distract from the more substantive issues I wanted to focus on there. But I urge the team to fix these errors; they seriously undermine the credibility of the report. Please feel free to share this mail as widely as you wish. >> >> - The description of domain names in the Executive Summary is >> either completely wrong, or a mistaken and misleading attempt to >> gloss over complexities about the DNS name space. This might not >> matter except that, if people are to take seriously proposals for >> better management of domain name registration data, the details of >> what a domain name is really need to be correct. Rather than >> fixing this, the entire passage might be removed without any harm: >> someone who cannot already recognize a DNS name will probably not >> care about WHOIS at all. >> >> - The introduction of WHOIS at the end of section B seems to >> suggest that WHOIS is for domain name registration data; but the >> WHOIS protocol has also historically been used for number >> resources (as Appendix G states), and that history may be part of >> the reason why the protocol has some of the limitations it has. >> This could be fixed with a minor adjustment to the description. >> >> - The mention of alternatives to the WHOIS protocol in Chapter 5 >> (footnote 17, page 44) talks about CRISP. But CRISP is not a >> protocol, and RFC 3707 is in fact a requirements document -- one >> that, if its specification were met, would address many of the >> issues with the WHOIS protocol and permit a better service. The >> IRIS protocol (RFC 3982) was the development that followed from >> the CRISP requirements. The narrow issue could be fixed by >> altering the reference. (At a more substantive level, IRIS was >> what resulted the last time the Internet community determined that >> WHOIS was not the answer to registration data problems, and the >> report might be stronger if it explored why those previous >> attempts to replace WHOIS did not succeed.) >> >> In Appendix G: >> >> - The example IP address is not in any normal presentation format >> for IP addresses, and it is very hard to see how it could be an IP >> address in any of the more obscure ways of writing IP addresses. >> >> - DNS is not only used to translate names to numbers. >> >> - The entire discussion of whois lookup in a thin-registry context >> ignores the way whois referral works, and appears to suggest that >> people who do not know how to operate the tool ought to be able to >> operate it without learning how. >> >> In Appendix H: >> >> - The definitions of A-label and LDH-label most certainly do not >> overlap. >> >> - WHOIS was not originally specified in RFC 954, but in RFC 812, >> published in 1982. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Andrew >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs at crankycanuck.ca >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Mar 16 17:20:19 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:20:19 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5AE3@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <20120315223744.GE19026@crankycanuck.ca> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5AE3@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <560450F8-2E86-4167-88B8-AF43C3F7B21A@paypal.com> I respect Mr Sullivan's opinions, and his statements regarding "factual" errors or inaccuracies may be correct, from a purely technical perspective. However, our audience is considerably broader. I'm all for accuracy, but we also need to consider readability and the scope of our work - WHOIS for names. On Mar 15, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Olof Nordling wrote: > Dear Review Team Members, > Please find some offline comments to the report, received today, for your attention and considerations. > Very best regards > Olof > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at crankycanuck.ca] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:38 PM > To: Olof Nordling > Subject: Offline comments on WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report > > Dear Mr Nordling, > > In my public posting commenting on the recent WHOIS review team report, I mentioned that I found some nits. I'm sending them to you as the staff support for the team. These are some (occasionally very > serious) technical errors that I found while reading the Whois Policy Review Team report. I didn't include them in my public posting because I thought they might distract from the more substantive issues I wanted to focus on there. But I urge the team to fix these errors; they seriously undermine the credibility of the report. Please feel free to share this mail as widely as you wish. > > - The description of domain names in the Executive Summary is > either completely wrong, or a mistaken and misleading attempt to > gloss over complexities about the DNS name space. This might not > matter except that, if people are to take seriously proposals for > better management of domain name registration data, the details of > what a domain name is really need to be correct. Rather than > fixing this, the entire passage might be removed without any harm: > someone who cannot already recognize a DNS name will probably not > care about WHOIS at all. > > - The introduction of WHOIS at the end of section B seems to > suggest that WHOIS is for domain name registration data; but the > WHOIS protocol has also historically been used for number > resources (as Appendix G states), and that history may be part of > the reason why the protocol has some of the limitations it has. > This could be fixed with a minor adjustment to the description. > > - The mention of alternatives to the WHOIS protocol in Chapter 5 > (footnote 17, page 44) talks about CRISP. But CRISP is not a > protocol, and RFC 3707 is in fact a requirements document -- one > that, if its specification were met, would address many of the > issues with the WHOIS protocol and permit a better service. The > IRIS protocol (RFC 3982) was the development that followed from > the CRISP requirements. The narrow issue could be fixed by > altering the reference. (At a more substantive level, IRIS was > what resulted the last time the Internet community determined that > WHOIS was not the answer to registration data problems, and the > report might be stronger if it explored why those previous > attempts to replace WHOIS did not succeed.) > > In Appendix G: > > - The example IP address is not in any normal presentation format > for IP addresses, and it is very hard to see how it could be an IP > address in any of the more obscure ways of writing IP addresses. > > - DNS is not only used to translate names to numbers. > > - The entire discussion of whois lookup in a thin-registry context > ignores the way whois referral works, and appears to suggest that > people who do not know how to operate the tool ought to be able to > operate it without learning how. > > In Appendix H: > > - The definitions of A-label and LDH-label most certainly do not > overlap. > > - WHOIS was not originally specified in RFC 954, but in RFC 812, > published in 1982. > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs at crankycanuck.ca > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From denise.michel at icann.org Sun Mar 18 18:52:10 2012 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:52:10 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FYI FW: Initial Staff input on the WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendations Message-ID: The Staff comments on the Draft Report were posted to the public comment forum yesterday. See below. 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 From: Denise MIchel Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 22:59:38 -0700 To: "whois-rt-draft-final-report at icann.org" < whois-rt-draft-final-report at icann.org> Subject: Initial Staff input on the WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendations Dear WHOIS Policy Review Team:**** This email responds to the WHOIS Policy Review Team's request that ICANN Staff provide input on clarifications and potential paths to implementation for the Review Team's draft Recommendations. A cross-functional ICANN Staff group is reviewing the draft recommendations and offers the following initial input for the Review Team's consideration.**** *Recommendation 1. Single WHOIS Policy* -- ICANN's WHOIS policy is poorly defined anddecentralized; 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. **** Staff understands the Review Team?s intention to be collection and posting of all current gTLD WHOIS policies and procedures, and can implement the Recommendation expeditiously.**** *Recommendation 2. Policy Review ? WHOIS Data Reminder Policy (WDRP)* -- 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). **** As Staff recently discussed with the Review Team, the Recommendation may be based on a misunderstanding of the WDRP requirements, as ICANN currently has no contractual authority to require registrars to track changes or provide ICANN with the necessary data for the recommended metrics. Staff is exploring ways to help achieve significant improvements in gTLD WHOIS accuracy. Potential paths to implementation include: changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), which is currently under negotiation; adoption by Registrars of best practices that improve WHOIS accuracy; and/or creation of a new GNSO consensus policy that modifies the WDRP or creates a new policy to achieve improvements in WHOIS accuracy. In addition, ICANN is involving additional levels of management in this area, increasing Compliance staffing levels, and building additional compliance tools. Staff is also assessing the costs and utility of measuring WHOIS accuracy on an annual basis, so that efforts to improve accuracy can be measured systematically over time, using a clear baseline to assess the effectiveness of enhancements that may be implemented. **** Based on feedback from the Review Team, the 2011 WDRP audit questionnaire (the audit was conducted in early 2012) was amended to obtain information from registrars on how they verify WHOIS contact information upon registration and on an on-going basis. The audit results will be published soon to inform policy debate on effectiveness of the WDRP and WHOIS metrics. **** *Recommendation 3. Strategic Priority* -- ICANN should make WHOIS a strategic priority, allocate sufficient resources to ensure Compliance is fully resourced to take a proactive regulatory role, and encourage a culture of compliance; Board should ensure that a senior member of the executive team is responsible for overseeing WHOIS compliance.**** Staff agrees that WHOIS is a strategic priority and designating a senior member of the executive team to be responsible for overseeing WHOIS is feasible. With input from the community and guidance from the Board, Staff develops ICANN's strategic plans and fiscal year budgets for Board approval, and WHOIS remains a strategic priority that has been allocated increased resources. This annual budget development process would be followed to maintain this priority and budgetary support. In October 2010, ICANN's John Jeffrey,ICANN?s General Counsel and Secretary assumed responsibility for overseeing the Compliance function. Mr. Jeffrey is an Officer of ICANN and is a senior member of ICANN?s Executive Team. The General Counsel oversees three distinct departments, Board Support, Compliance and Legal. They have separate managers but report to the executive team through Mr. Jeffrey. Staff understands the phrase ?proactive regulatory role? to mean that Compliance and its Executive leader should be taking the initiative to identify and vigorously address contract violations, focusing on the most serious in a systematic and rigorous way, and is committed to doing so.. ICANN is increasing staff levels and creating new tools to assist in identifying contract violations more effectively.**** *Recommendation 4. Outreach* -- ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to interested communities outside of ICANN.**** Staff would welcome additional guidance from the Team on its recommended outreach goals and targets. The Recommendation seems consistent with ICANN?s current global outreach strategies ? including new initiatives for Stakeholder outreach, Compliance?s new outreach efforts, and the outreach required in the GNSO's new policy development process (PDP) ? and it can be implemented expeditiously. Staff also agrees that outreach to additional stakeholders, such as national data protection authorities and consumer communities is both valuable and feasible.**** *Recommendation 5. Data Accuracy -- *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.**** Staff is pursuing the goal of increased WHOIS accuracy, and exploring new approaches to working with contracted parties outside the confines of the contract to increase WHOIS accuracy. It would be useful to have more information from the Team on the Recommendation to enable Staff to further investigate public policy, legal issues and implementation options. In particular, clarification on the following elements of the Recommendation would be helpful:**** ? It is Staffs understanding that the Team means ?undeliverable? (there is no way to reach the registrant) when it uses the term ?unreachable? in the Recommendation. In determining whether a registrant cannot be reached, the legal and privacy implications would need to be fully explored.**** ? Does the Team intend for Staff to determine the extent of a study based on what is a statistically valid sample size given the overall market? The NORC Accuracy Study involved a sample size of 1400 registrations, and cost ICANN approximately US$200,000. **** ? What level of accuracy is desired? Achieving 100% accuracy may involve intrusive verification methods that can raise privacy and cost concerns, and might be better addressed through a policy development process (PDP) that could solicit the input of the community.**** Advancing the goal of the Recommendation is feasible, assuming that the RAA can be amended through the negotiations underway or through a GNSO PDP. Amending the RAA to include additional accuracy or verification requirements is important because the current RAA does not require registrars to verify a registrant?s WHOIS information at the point of registration. Improving accuracy is a key ICANN request in the ongoing negotiations with registrars to amend the RAA. In these negotiations, ICANN has proposed including an appendix to the RAA that commits registrars to enhancing WHOIS accuracy through various phases, including gradual improvements that can be updated from time to time. Should these WHOIS verification obligations not be included in the amended RAA, a GNSO PDP would need to be initiated to create appropriate consensus policies to be enforceable on the registrars. Consultations with the GNSO constituencies, especially the registrars, on the Recommendation would be helpful. **** *Recommendation 6. & 7.* *Data Accuracy -- *ICANN shall publish annually an accuracy report on measured reduction in ?unreachable WHOIS registrations.? ICANN shall 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. **** As noted above, Staff is pursuing the goal and is investigating the public policy, legal issues and implementation options available to improve accuracy. ICANN is reviewing how to report WHOIS inaccuracy complaints, measure reduction overtime, and proactively engage with non-compliant registrars by leveraging thecomplaint intake system and resources currently available. As noted above, Staff analysis is ongoing, and changes to improve accuracy are under discussion in the RAA negotiations, which also should be factored in. Community discussion also would be helpful on how the Recommendation can best be implemented.**** *Recommendation 8.* *Data Accuracy -- *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.**** Staff is pursuing the goal of increasing clarity on WHOIS accuracy obligations, and steps to better inform registrars, registrants, and users of the Internet at large could be beneficial. Staff also is pursuing the use of graduated penalties, which should be helpful to improving WHOIS accuracy while not unfairly punishing parties for misunderstandings or mistakes. Staff needs to investigate public policy, legal issues and implementation optionsinvolved in the Recommendation. Under current agreements, registrars and registrants already have obligations to help ensure WHOIS data accuracy. Moreover, most agreements already have actual or implicit provisions for ?graduated sanctions? for breaches of the agreements, generally. It would be helpful to understand, then, whether this is largely a request for better community education or if there is a perceived need for additional contractual tools. **** Considerable work is already underway as part of the current round of RAA negotiations to strengthen and clarify WHOIS data accuracy obligations applicable to both registrars and registrants. Inaddition, ICANN and registrars have already agreed in principle that WHOIS data will require some form of data verification as a condition of registration and at other relevant times. Because this discussion is active, the framework for the verification requirement is still under development. It is anticipated that this new regime may require efforts by ICANN to help educate registrars andregistrants. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the Recommendation will besubstantially implemented upon adoption of a revised RAA, making at least theapparent aim of the Recommendation feasible to accomplish.**** Currently, registrars and registrants are primarily responsible for maintaining WHOIS data accuracy. As noted, the 2009 version of the RAA provides for graduated sanctions for breaches, short of termination of the RAA.[1] <#136246471c91bdc1__ftn1> This contractual framework generally allows registrars some flexibility in addressing inaccurate WHOIS data; for example, registrars may suspend a registration instead of deleting it or allow extra time for a registrant response if extenuating circumstances warrant it. If there were a desire by the community to require registrars to conform to a particular course of action in remedying WHOIS data inaccuracy, the RAA could be amended or a consensus policy (GNSO PDP) could be developed to specify, precisely, the steps a registrar must take. Enhanced WHOIS accuracy provisions also could be introduced through additional provisions in the New gTLD Program, such as through the Registry-Registrar Agreements, or a new RAA that would apply solely to New GTLDs.**** *Recommendation 9.**Data Accuracy -- *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 and prominently circulated to all new and renewing registrants. **** Staff is engaged in advancing this goal, as a better understanding of WHOIS data among registrants can be expected to help improve data accuracy and help registrants avoid loss of the use of registrations caused by their (potentially unintended) failure to maintain accurate WHOIS data. **** In terms of registrant education efforts, there are several educational resources available today For example, Section 3.15 of the 2009 RAA currently requires registrars to post links on their websites to the ?Registrant Rights and Responsibilities? document developed by ICANN that is intended to describe the RAA in plainlyunderstood, non-legalistic language. Moreover, registrars are required to post the link ?at least as clearly as [their] links to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies.? Our initial studies have indicated that a vast majority of registrars have satisfied this requirement. Also, in addition to the registration agreement requirement that registrants provide accurateWHOIS data (Sections 3.7.7.1 and 3.7.7.2), the WDRP requires registrars to remind registrants on an annual basis to verify the accuracy of their WHOISdata and that ?provision of false WHOIS information can be grounds forcancellation of their domain name registration.? Is it the Review Team?s opinion that this is not an adequate communication to renewing registrants?Additionally, because this recommendation suggests communication of WHOIS obligations to prospective registrants (who have no WHOIS obligation nor presumably, much interest in WHOIS data until they become registrants), it would be helpful to understand the extent to which ICANN and registrars should, in the Review Team?s view, engage in educational efforts.**** The RAAcould be amended or a GNSO consensus policy adopted to require registrars tocommunicate the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document even more prominently, but some investigation should be undertaken as a part of the initiative to ascertain first whether the current scheme is ineffective. Additional educational efforts are feasible and could be initiated, but the costs and resources needed to perform this work will depend on the extent and scope of efforts expected by the Review Team. In addition, the creation of a Registrar ?Code of Conduct? as referenced in the RAA (3.7.1) might be another way of implementing these recommendations if they are supported by a consensus of ICANN-accredited registrars.**** *Recommendation 10.**Data Access -- Privacy Services* -- 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 law enforcement. These should include:**** ? WHOIS entry must clearly label that this is a private registration.* *** ? Privacy services must provide full contact details as required by the WHOIS that are available and responsive as required by the framework mentioned 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 on registrant contact information.**** Staff is exploring measures to help achieve clear, consistent, and enforceable requirements for privacy services, and has made this topic a priority in the RAA negotiations. Specifically, Staff has proposed creating an accreditation program for privacy services, which could provide a framework for implementing the Recommendation. **** Although the Recommendation is in line with objectives being pursued by Staff, it will be difficult to ensure that all privacy services are covered by the proposed system. Since ICANN does not have direct contracts with registrants, ICANN has limited ability to identify all privacy services in use. However, by including an obligation in the RAA that a registrar may not knowingly accept registrations from unaccredited privacy services, a substantial portion of the privacy registrations available today could be covered by the obligations described in the Recommendation. Creation of an ICANN accreditation program for privacy services will have significant budgetary and operational impact, as it would likely require ICANN to hire additional resources to meet these new obligations. Also, implementation would involve amendments to the RAA, or the adoption of consensus policies by theGNSO, in order to create enforceable obligations against registrars.** ** Staff continues to analyze the elements of an accreditation program for privacy services, and community discussion of the Recommendation will be useful.**** *Recommendation 11.* *Data Access -- Privacy Services* -- 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 or otherwise serious breaches.**** If an accreditation program were established by ICANN for privacy services, Staffwould expect that graduated and enforceable series of penalties for privacyservice providers who violate the requirements would be an integral part ofthis program. Community input will be needed on various aspects of the Recommendation, including the following:**** ? What types of penalties should apply? **** ? If a privacy service is de-accredited, what should happen to the customers of the service? Would their underlying information be unmasked? Since there is no obligation to escrow information of privacy services, it may be difficult to protect the customers of such privacy providers.**** ICANN?s ability to implement this recommendation is dependent upon entering into direct contracts with privacy service providers. Without contracts, there may be no applicable enforcement mechanism. **** Staff continues to analyze the elements of an accreditation program for privacy services, and community discussion of the Recommendation will be useful.**** *Recommendation 12. Data Access - Proxy Services -- *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.**** Staff can engage in voluntary discussions with proxy providers about their current processes, and use a variety of outreach mechanisms (including ICANN meetings) to advance such conversations. If the Review Team has additional guidance for Staff on intended targets, that would be useful. Proxy accreditation is being explored in the current RAA negotiations. The Recommendation may require amendments to the RAA, or adoption of a GNSO consensus policy, as Staff?s role with proxy services currently is limited. Staff continues to analyze the elements of an accreditation program for proxy services, and community discussion of the Recommendation will be useful.**** *Recommendation 13. Data Access - Proxy Services -- *Registrars should be required to disclose to ICANN their relationship with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider.**** Staff is pursuing this objective, which is being addressed in the current RAA negotiations. While the Recommendation is feasible, Staff also needs to explore the various ways registrars can be affiliated with retail proxy service providers (and registrar input would be useful).**** *Recommendation 14. Data Access - Proxy Services -- *ICANN should develop a set of voluntary best practice guidelines for appropriate proxy services[2]<#136246471c91bdc1__ftn2>consistent with national laws, striking a balance between stakeholders withcompeting 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 by WHOIS;**** ? Publication by the proxy service of its process for revealing and relaying information;**** ? Standardization of reveal and relay processes and 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.**** Staff is pursuing a similar goal ? relay and reveal issues are being addressed in the RAA negotiations. These efforts will be factored into Staff?s work on the Recommendation. Staff continues to analyze potential implementation of the Recommendation, and the GNSO may beable to assist with implementation analysis.**** *Recommendation 15. Data Access - Proxy Services -- *ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the retail service providers that adopt the best practices.**** Staff continues to explore implementation details for the Recommendation, including addressing liability, auditing, and other issues, as well as implementation resource needs. Input from registrars, in particular, would be useful here. **** *Recommendation 16. Data Access - Proxy Services -- *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. **** The current RAA holds the Registered Name Holder responsible for adhering to registrantobligations regardless of whether the registration was made on behalf of a third party. A draft Registrar Advisory was issued for consideration on 14 May 2010 to provide community guidance and clarification of this provision, but was never finalized. It would be helpful for Staff to receive community input on reconsidering this advisory. RAA negotiations also may affect implementation of the Recommendation.**** *Recommendation 17. Data Access ? Common Interface* -- 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? also is provided: 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. **** The Recommendation seems feasible and Staff looks forward to further investigating implementation once the Recommendation is finalized. **** A ?single point of access? to domain name registration data is similar in objectives to the Centralized Zone File Access solution developed by Staff and the ICANN community to facilitate access to TLD zone file data, but different in technical, operational, business, and contractual aspects. Staff is prepared to study these implementation issues and offers the following comments and observations.**** Currently, Staff and the Internet technical community are studying several of the technical implementation aspects that would define the technical framework for an improved WHOIS service. These include multilingual interfaces (internationalized registration data, through the IRD WG, a collaborative effort of the GNSO, SSAC, and CCNSO), normalization of data (analysis of query, response, display and error messages by the SSAC), the development of standard protocols (by both name and address registry members of the Internet community through IETF processes), and consideration of service requirements by the GNSO. Several of these participants, including Staff, have and continue to run technical experiments with this framework, and ?proof of concept? as well as production services at ARIN offer promising results. These are necessary but may not be sufficient conditions to implementing the Team?s Recommendation.**** The operation of a dedicated, multilingual WHOIS web site has technical and business implications. ICANN would require budget approval for acquisition of access bandwidth andinfrastructure, and for hiring of Staff sufficient to meet the demands of acommon entry point to a distributed database currently accessed through infrastructure provided by hundreds of registry and registrar WHOIS services. Capacity planning for an enterprise of this scale can only properly be doneafter a detailed implementation framework and plan is approved.**** One technical solution is to have this web site act as a proxy that would relay queries between WHOISusers and registries or registrars. An alternative solution would be for ICANN to collect registration data from registries and registrars and maintain these locally, either cached or in permanent storage. Existing registry and registrar WHOIS services must change to satisfy the ?back end? requirements for either solution. For example, if a relay model is chosen, registry and registrar WHOIS services must satisfy availability and throughput requirements (and not rate limit), whereas if a cache or storageoption is chosen, a method for maintaining data synchronization and consistency must be developed. Lastly, any operational solution Staff is asked to consider must be evaluated and demonstrated to scale better than the existing solution.**** Independent of the operational solution selected, the ICANN community may need to undertake a consensus policy development or engage in contractual negotiations to establish new registry and registrar contractual obligations that do not exist today.**** *Recommendation 18. Internationalized Domain Names* -- The ICANN Community should task a working group 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 working group should report no later than oneyear from formation, using existing IDN encoding. The working group should aim for consistency of approach across gTLDs and ? on a voluntary basis ? the ccTLD space.**** Staff is pursuing the Recommendation -- with some clarifications. Specifically, it is not within ICANN?s remitto select what encoding should be applied, or what signal mechanism should be established to support those encodings; this is the role of the IETF. From a technical perspective, mandating that encodings say UTF-8 would cause serious backward compatibility issues for the majority of the WHOIS clients today and Staff is not certain that is the right a to take. The approach Staff suggests is to defer this issue to the IETF, and ask that they create a protocol that supports internationalized registration data. This falls within IETF?s remit, and this group has the necessary technical expertise and broader participation from all of the relevant technical stakeholders.**** Staff proposes the following revision to the Review Team?s Recommendation: ?The ICANN Community should develop, in cooperation with the IETF and other technical standards organizations as needed, (i) a unified registration data model, and (ii) a solution for offering internationalized services.? In addition, the draft report states, ?Such working group should report no later than one year from formation, using existing IDN encoding.? Staff is not sure what ?using existing IDN encoding? means and would appreciate clarification.**** *Recommendation 19. Internationalized Domain Names* -- The final data model and services should be incorporated and reflected in Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of adoption of the working group?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). **** As noted above, the Recommendation could be implemented if the IETF takes the necessary action. Implementation would require incorporation into the RAA and existing registry agreements, which would require negotiations and/or a GNSO PDP. An increase in resources and expertise alsowould be needed. Staff has put a ?placeholder? for internationalized services on the discussion list for the current RAA negotiations, and Staff has suggested that, if the IETF develops a new protocol, it should be automatically implemented. This recommendation also could be introduced through additional provisions in the New gTLD Program, such as through the Registry-Registrar Agreements, or a new RAA that would apply solely to New GTLDs.**** *Recommendation 20. Internationalized Domain Names* -- 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. **** As noted above, Staff is pursuing the Recommendation -- with some clarifications/corrections. Staff continues to analyze the details involved in the Recommendation?s potential implementation.**** ** ** ------------------------------ [1] <#136246471c91bdc1__ftnref1> See RAA Section 2.1, allowing ICANN to suspend a registrar?s ability to create new registrations and initiate inbound transfers for up to a 12-month period, and Section 5.7, requiring payment by the registrar of ICANN?s enforcement costs or sanctions of up to five times ICANN?s enforcement costs for repeated willful material breaches. Section 3.7.7.1 of the RAA obligates registrars to include in their registration agreements a provision requiring registrants to provide accurate and reliable registration contact details. Section 3.7.7.2 of the RAA obligates registrars to include in their registration agreements a provision making it a material breach for a registrant to willfully provide inaccurate or unreliable information, willfully fail to promptly update contact information provided to the registrar, or fail to respond for over 15 calendar days to inquiries from the registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details. Section 3.7.8 of the RAA requires registrars to take ?reasonable steps? to investigate and correct allegedly inaccurate WHOIS data.**** [2] <#136246471c91bdc1__ftnref2> As ?guidance to the community? and as useful background for the Proxy Service Recommendations, the Team provides its working definitions of proxy service and different types of proxy service providers. **** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120318/c7b4a9e4/attachment.html