From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com  Mon Apr  9 15:24:04 2012
From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:24:04 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Steps toward de-accreditation and sanctions
In-Reply-To: <20120404160106.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.bb136c528e.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20120404160106.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.bb136c528e.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <D658BABE-A240-4346-8B5E-0CB2921CAA77@paypal.com>

As best I can tell, the graduated sanctions in the current RAA are suspension and termination. Suspension requires "fundamental and material breach" and termination "failure to cure any breach within 15 days". Both are for at the "high" end of any graduated scale.

I'd like to see something at the low and mid range of a scale, and SLAs would be a way to accomplish this.

On Apr 4, 2012, at 4:01 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:

Hi Kathy:

As we discussed on today's call, the actions available to ICANN Compliance can be described in a hierarchy, with distinct "levels."  The first three levels include escalating notices / inquiries between ICANN and the contracted party.  non-response (or unsatisfactory response) results in graduating to the next level sanction.    From the Initial, Second and Final notice the communications occur in private and the contracted party is considered to be "in good standing."

After the Final notice, the next level is a Breach Letter. This is published on the ICANN Compliance website and is considered the turning point where a registrars is no longer in "good standing."  Breach letters would include specific time requirements for cure, and the next escalation would be Suspension or Termination.

I think there was a public session in Costa Rica where Maguy Serad went over these in a slide deck.  Perhaps Alice / Denise can help us locate?

The question we (RT4) should consider is:  Are these sufficiently "graduated sanctions"?  In theory, I believe this to be the case.  In practice, I know that the "white hat" registrars would never allow a situation to reach the "Breach" stage, since remaining in good standing with ICANN is a critical part of their business.

If we were to consider more "levels," we should balance the trade-off.  On the one hand, it would give Compliance more tools to go after non-compliant registrars, but if Compliance is required to exhaust one "level" of tool before moving on to the next, it could elongate the entire process.  And the only other tool that has been discussed (and currently in use with Registries) is the SLA, which would include financial penalties.  It would be interesting to see if the SLA concept could be applied to registrar WHOIS obligations, especially those involving uptime of their WHOIS systems.

Thanks--

J.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Steps toward de-accreditation and sanctions
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Date: Wed, April 04, 2012 9:37 am
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Cc: "jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>

Hi All,
I had the assignment on our "to do" list to "Find text on accreditation." Based on my recollection, this means returning to the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement and finding any text on a more gradual path to de-accreditation for Registrars (not just an "off with your head" and termination of the contract).

Indeed, as James shared, there is a new section which we should look at. It's 2.1, under ICANN's obligations, and it allows ICANN to "suspend Registrar?s ability to create new Registered Names or initiate inbound transfers of Registered Names for one or more TLDs for up to a twelve (12) month period if (i) ICANN has given notice to Registrar of a breach that is fundamental and material to this Agreement pursuant to Subsection 5.3.4 and Registrar has not cured the breach within the period for cure prescribed by Subsection 5.3.4, or (ii) Registrar shall have been repeatedly and willfully in fundamental and material breach of its obligations at least three (3) times within any twelve (12) month period.?

That is a new and graduated sanction, so I appreciate James pointing it out.  Plus we have the de-accreditation paragraphs in Section 5 (under "termination of agreement by ICANN.")   James, is there anything further we should be looking at?

Excerpts below and attached (for easier reading).
Best,
Kathy

------------------- 2009 RAA --------------------
Excerpts of 2009 RAA
?2. ICANN OBLIGATIONS.
2.1 Accreditation. During the Term of this Agreement, Registrar is hereby accredited by ICANN to act as a registrar (including to insert and renew registration of Registered Names in the Registry Database) for the TLD(s) that are the subject of appendices to this Agreement according to Subsection 5.5. Notwithstanding the above and except in the case of a good faith disagreement concerning the interpretation of this Agreement, ICANN may, following notice to Registrar, suspend Registrar?s ability to create new Registered Names or initiate inbound transfers of Registered Names for one or more TLDs for up to a twelve (12) month period if (i) ICANN has given notice to Registrar of a breach that is fundamental and material to this Agreement pursuant to Subsection 5.3.4 and Registrar has not cured the breach within the period for cure prescribed by Subsection 5.3.4, or (ii) Registrar shall have been repeatedly and willfully in fundamental and material breach of its obligations at least three (3) times within any twelve (12) month period.?
***
"5.3 Termination of Agreement by ICANN. This Agreement may be terminated before its expiration by ICANN in any of the following circumstances:
5.3.1 There was a material misrepresentation, material inaccuracy, or materially misleading statement in Registrar's application for accreditation or any material accompanying the application.
5.3.2 Registrar:
5.3.2.1 is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony or other serious offense related to financial activities, or is judged by a court of competent jurisdiction to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN reasonably deems as the substantive equivalent of those offenses; or
5.3.2.2 is disciplined by the government of its domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others.
5.3.3 Any officer or director of Registrar is convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or is judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN deems as the substantive equivalent of any of these; provided, such officer or director is not removed in such circumstances. Upon the execution of this agreement, Registrar shall provide ICANN with a list of the names of Registrar's directors and officers. Registrar also shall notify ICANN within thirty (30) days of any changes to its list of directors and officers.
5.3.4 Registrar fails to cure any breach of this Agreement (other than a failure to comply with a policy adopted by ICANN during the term of this Agreement as to which Registrar is seeking, or still has time to seek, review under Subsection 4.3.2 of whether a consensus is present) within fifteen (15) working days after ICANN gives Registrar notice of the breach.
5.3.5 Registrar fails to comply with a ruling granting specific performance under Subsections 5.1 and 5.6.
5.3.6 Registrar continues acting in a manner that ICANN has reasonably determined endangers the stability or operational integrity of the Internet after receiving three (3) days notice of that determination.
5.3.7 Registrar becomes bankrupt or insolvent.
This Agreement may be terminated in circumstances described in Subsections 5.3.1 - 5.3.6 above only upon fifteen (15) days written notice to Registrar (in the case of Subsection 5.3.4 occurring after Registrar's failure to cure), with Registrar being given an opportunity during that time to initiate arbitration under Subsection 5.6 to determine the appropriateness of termination under this Agreement. If Registrar acts in a manner that ICANN reasonably determines endangers the stability or operational integrity of the Internet and upon notice does not immediately cure, ICANN may suspend this Agreement for five (5) working days pending ICANN's application for more extended specific performance or injunctive relief under Subsection 5.6. This Agreement may be terminated immediately upon notice to Registrar in circumstance described in Subsection 5.3.7 above.


--




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




From alice.jansen at icann.org  Mon Apr  9 15:46:54 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:46:54 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendation 3 + 17
Message-ID: <CBA8D10D.18C0C%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Attached you will find Emily's proposals for recommendations 3 and 17.
Also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report

Please be kindly reminded to circulate your comments by Wednesday, 11 April.

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/20120409/ad53185c/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Recommendation 3 - Emily.docx
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 152524 bytes
Desc: Recommendation 3 - Emily.docx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120409/ad53185c/Recommendation3-Emily.docx 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Recommendation 17 - Emily[1].docx
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 113060 bytes
Desc: Recommendation 17 - Emily[1].docx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120409/ad53185c/Recommendation17-Emily1.docx 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Mon Apr  9 16:14:08 2012
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:14:08 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Steps toward de-accreditation and sanctions
In-Reply-To: <20120404160106.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.bb136c528e.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20120404160106.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.bb136c528e.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQFVnLra3q7S3W2UkDxiFs6+8GBSg0TUrU9dshofzXSdNA@mail.gmail.com>

Compliance's Costa Rica slides are linked here:
http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29521

Slide 8 shows the enforcement process.

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, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
> Hi Kathy:
>
> As we discussed on today's call, the actions available to ICANN Compliance
> can be described in a hierarchy, with distinct "levels."? The first three
> levels include escalating notices / inquiries between ICANN and the
> contracted party.? non-response (or unsatisfactory response) results in
> graduating to the next level sanction.??? From the Initial, Second and Final
> notice the communications occur in private and the contracted party is
> considered to be "in good standing."
>
> After the Final notice, the next level is a Breach Letter. This is published
> on the ICANN Compliance website and is considered the turning point where a
> registrars is no longer in "good standing."? Breach letters would include
> specific time requirements for cure, and the next escalation would be
> Suspension or Termination.
>
> I think there was a public session in Costa Rica where Maguy Serad went over
> these in a slide deck.? Perhaps Alice / Denise can help us locate?
>
> The question we (RT4) should consider is:? Are these sufficiently "graduated
> sanctions"?? In theory, I believe this to be the case.? In practice, I know
> that the "white hat" registrars would never allow a situation to reach the
> "Breach" stage, since remaining in good standing with ICANN is a critical
> part of their business.
>
> If we were to consider more "levels," we should balance the trade-off.? On
> the one hand, it would give Compliance more tools to go after non-compliant
> registrars, but if Compliance is required to exhaust one "level" of tool
> before moving on to the next, it could elongate the entire process.? And the
> only other tool that has been discussed (and currently in use with
> Registries) is the SLA, which would include financial penalties.? It would
> be interesting to see if the SLA concept could be applied to registrar WHOIS
> obligations, especially those involving uptime of their WHOIS systems.
>
> Thanks--
>
> J.
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Subject: Steps toward de-accreditation and sanctions
> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> Date: Wed, April 04, 2012 9:37 am
> To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" <rt4-whois at icann.org>
> Cc: "jbladel at godaddy.com" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>
>
> Hi All,
> I had the assignment on our "to do" list to "Find text on accreditation."
> Based on my recollection, this means returning to the 2009 Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement and finding any text on a more gradual path to
> de-accreditation for Registrars (not just an "off with your head" and
> termination of the contract).
>
> Indeed, as James shared, there is a new section which we should look at.
> It's 2.1, under ICANN's obligations, and it allows ICANN to "suspend
> Registrar?s ability to create new Registered Names or initiate inbound
> transfers of Registered Names for one or more TLDs for up to a twelve (12)
> month period if (i) ICANN has given notice to Registrar of a breach that is
> fundamental and material to this Agreement pursuant to Subsection 5.3.4 and
> Registrar has not cured the breach within the period for cure prescribed by
> Subsection 5.3.4, or (ii) Registrar shall have been repeatedly and willfully
> in fundamental and material breach of its obligations at least three (3)
> times within any twelve (12) month period.?
>
> That is a new and graduated sanction, so I appreciate James pointing it
> out.? Plus we have the de-accreditation paragraphs in Section 5 (under
> "termination of agreement by ICANN.")?? James, is there anything further we
> should be looking at?
>
> Excerpts below and attached (for easier reading).
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> ------------------- 2009 RAA --------------------
> Excerpts of 2009 RAA
> ?2. ICANN OBLIGATIONS.
> 2.1 Accreditation. During the Term of this Agreement, Registrar is hereby
> accredited by ICANN to act as a registrar (including to insert and renew
> registration of Registered Names in the Registry Database) for the TLD(s)
> that are the subject of appendices to this Agreement according to Subsection
> 5.5. Notwithstanding the above and except in the case of a good faith
> disagreement concerning the interpretation of this Agreement, ICANN may,
> following notice to Registrar, suspend Registrar?s ability to create new
> Registered Names or initiate inbound transfers of Registered Names for one
> or more TLDs for up to a twelve (12) month period if (i) ICANN has given
> notice to Registrar of a breach that is fundamental and material to this
> Agreement pursuant to Subsection 5.3.4 and Registrar has not cured the
> breach within the period for cure prescribed by Subsection 5.3.4, or (ii)
> Registrar shall have been repeatedly and willfully in fundamental and
> material breach of its obligations at least three (3) times within any
> twelve (12) month period.?
> ***
> "5.3 Termination of Agreement by ICANN. This Agreement may be terminated
> before its expiration by ICANN in any of the following circumstances:
>
> 5.3.1 There was a material misrepresentation, material inaccuracy, or
> materially misleading statement in Registrar's application for accreditation
> or any material accompanying the application.
> 5.3.2 Registrar:
>
> 5.3.2.1 is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony or
> other serious offense related to financial activities, or is judged by a
> court of competent jurisdiction to have committed fraud or breach of
> fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN
> reasonably deems as the substantive equivalent of those offenses; or
> 5.3.2.2 is disciplined by the government of its domicile for conduct
> involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others.
>
> 5.3.3 Any officer or director of Registrar is convicted of a felony or of a
> misdemeanor related to financial activities, or is judged by a court to have
> committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial
> determination that ICANN deems as the substantive equivalent of any of
> these; provided, such officer or director is not removed in such
> circumstances. Upon the execution of this agreement, Registrar shall provide
> ICANN with a list of the names of Registrar's directors and officers.
> Registrar also shall notify ICANN within thirty (30) days of any changes to
> its list of directors and officers.
> 5.3.4 Registrar fails to cure any breach of this Agreement (other than a
> failure to comply with a policy adopted by ICANN during the term of this
> Agreement as to which Registrar is seeking, or still has time to seek,
> review under Subsection 4.3.2 of whether a consensus is present) within
> fifteen (15) working days after ICANN gives Registrar notice of the breach.
> 5.3.5 Registrar fails to comply with a ruling granting specific performance
> under Subsections 5.1 and 5.6.
> 5.3.6 Registrar continues acting in a manner that ICANN has reasonably
> determined endangers the stability or operational integrity of the Internet
> after receiving three (3) days notice of that determination.
> 5.3.7 Registrar becomes bankrupt or insolvent.
>
> This Agreement may be terminated in circumstances described in Subsections
> 5.3.1 - 5.3.6 above only upon fifteen (15) days written notice to Registrar
> (in the case of Subsection 5.3.4 occurring after Registrar's failure to
> cure), with Registrar being given an opportunity during that time to
> initiate arbitration under Subsection 5.6 to determine the appropriateness
> of termination under this Agreement. If Registrar acts in a manner that
> ICANN reasonably determines endangers the stability or operational integrity
> of the Internet and upon notice does not immediately cure, ICANN may suspend
> this Agreement for five (5) working days pending ICANN's application for
> more extended specific performance or injunctive relief under Subsection
> 5.6. This Agreement may be terminated immediately upon notice to Registrar
> in circumstance described in Subsection 5.3.7 above.
>
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>



From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Tue Apr 10 06:26:58 2012
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:26:58 +1000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendation 5 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <CBA1BD64.1832A%skawaguchi@fb.com>
References: <CBA1BD64.1832A%skawaguchi@fb.com>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352240827@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hi Susan, and all,
I apologise if this was discussed in last week's teleconference, which I unfortunately missed, but is this something that is only intended to apply to the data accuracy recommendations, or more broadly to all of our recommendations?
Following from that, how does this fit with the earlier discussion about the timeframes mentioned under the AoC?
I certainly support the idea of having clearly defined timeframes and so on, and am just trying to understand how this could fit into the broader picture.
Cheers,
Peter

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi
Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2012 1:57 AM
To: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendation 5

Please see a proposed revision to recommendation 5 highlighted in yellow.  I would like to add the following language to rec 5 as a I fear that ICANN will not act timely on the issues.  If we give them the responsibility to provide a clearly defined path forward with each of the recommendations with an imposed timeline to the community we may have a better outcome with these recommendations.

ICANN should provide a detailed and comprehensive plan within 3 months after the submission of the Final Whois Review Team report that outlines how ICANN will move forward in implementing these recommendations.  ICANN should also  provide at least annual status reports   on its progress towards achieving the goals set out by this WHOIS Review Team, published by the time the next WHOIS Review Team starts.This report should include tangible, reliable figures needed.


Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 
 and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 
 review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the 
 intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all 
 copies of the original message. 

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. 
MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120410/b54b9500/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Apr 10 13:38:06 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:38:06 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] PLEASE COMPLETE POLL - Call with ICANN Staff
In-Reply-To: <CBA4EA0F.18B90%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CBAA03D1.18D1B%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,
Please be kindly reminded to complete the call with ICANN Staff doodle poll by today, end of your business day.
http://www.doodle.com/kuheyrc2q4vbir5w
Thanks,
Kind regards
Alice

From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:44:31 -0700
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Subject: DOODLE POLL - Call with ICANN Staff

Dear Review Team Members,

As agreed,  a conference call with selected ICANN Staff Members will be scheduled for more in-depth discussion of some of the recommendations.
Please help us determine the most convenient slot by filing out the enclosed doodle poll link by Tuesday, 10 April ? end of your business day

http://www.doodle.com/kuheyrc2q4vbir5w

Many thanks in advance

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/20120410/cc95635b/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Apr 10 14:28:36 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:28:36 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Action items list
Message-ID: <CBAA1034.18D93%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,
Enclosed, please find the action items list for your convenience.
It is also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+Items+-+Spring+2012
Thanks,
Kind regards
Alice

Action Items - Spring 2012

 *   Revive call schedule (calls to take place on Wednesdays once a week; first call to take place on Wed, 28 March) ? Alice [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]
 *   Review and submit language of recs 5-9 (Data Accuracy) by 28 March - Susan ; Status: Work in progress - Circulate draft by 4 April Rec 5[https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]
 *   Review comments submitted to the Team and Denise's recommendation tracking document ? All ; Status: Pending (next conference call)
 *   Propose alternative language for Proxy and Privacy recommendations by 28 March -  James + Susan + Peter + Seth ; Status: 1st conference call held - Refer to Seth's draft circulated to the list. Consolidated draft to be emailed by 4 April 11 April
 *   Hold the pen on rec. 3 strategic priority by 28 March -- Emily ; [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]   - Team to submit comments by 4 April 11 April
 *   Find text on accreditation by 28 March -- Kathy ; Status: Work in progress - Circulate draft by 4 April [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]   James to circulate text on hierarchy of enforcement [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]
 *   Work on language of rec. 17 by 28 March -- Emily; [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]   Members to submit comments by 4 April 11 April
 *   Review language of recs. on IDNs by 28 March-- Sarmad + Kathy + Wilfried + Michael; Status: Work in progress - Circulate draft by 4 April 11 April
 *   Review your chapters and send redline to Seth + Omar + Alice by 21 March--  13 April
 *   Review body of text in light of comments and integrate changes suggested/required by Members-- Seth + Omar

Additional action items (following call held on 28 March):

 *   Draft some language on timeframes and implementation paths in light of the AoC - Susan + Lynn
 *   Respond to Staff's comments for Community's information - All
 *   Strengthen compliance recommendations and add justification to proposal - Peter + Emily + Bill

--
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/20120410/e04a9ec2/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Apr 10 15:39:12 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:39:12 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - Call on Wed, 11 April
Message-ID: <CBAA20C0.18DA6%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 11 April ? 17:00 UTC.
Please find enclosed the agenda (also available on your public wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+27+-+11+April+2012)
1. Roll call & apologies
2. Adopt preliminary report (4 April)
3. Continuing walk through of ICANN Staff comments and queries on Recommendations, starting at Recommendation 12 (Denise)
4. Update from action item penholders https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+Items+-+Spring+2012 and ongoing review of proposed new texts https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report

    *   Data Accuracy recommendations
    *   Proxy & privacy recommendations
    *   Recommendation 3 & 17
    *   Text on accreditation & hierarchy of enforcement
    *   IDN recommendations
    *   Language on timeframes and implementation paths
    *   Compliance recommendations
    *   Next steps

5. A.O.B
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/20120410/b362f493/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Tue Apr 10 15:47:37 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:47:37 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary report (4 April) for your consideration
Message-ID: <CBAA22B9.18DAA%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find attached the preliminary report of your call held on 4 April.

Kindly note that this will be discussed during your upcoming conference call. In the meantime, please feel free to email editing suggestions/requirements.

Thanks,

Very best 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/20120410/c94c330c/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Prel Report - 4 April - v2 - for your consideration.doc
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 40448 bytes
Desc: Prel Report - 4 April - v2 - for your consideration.doc
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120410/c94c330c/PrelReport-4April-v2-foryourconsideration.doc 

From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Wed Apr 11 07:50:55 2012
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:50:55 +1000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Input for today/tomorrow's call [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <CBA8D10D.18C0C%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <CBA8D10D.18C0C%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33523B07B6@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hello again all,

Unfortunately, I will again be missing tomorrow's call, so I'm sending through my comments in advance.

Privacy/proxy
I've made some edits and suggestions directly to the small group working on the privacy-proxy recommendations. I'm not sure where that will end up before the call, but I am encouraged that the group is making good progress.

Recommendation 17
In short, I really like Emily's new version.  I'm interested in other views, but to me this gets to the heart of (this part of) the accessibility issue, and is clear, actionable, and should avoid the confusion we had with our earlier version.  My one question on this is whether we should also explicitly recommend that ICANN actively and widely promote this new/improved service - i.e. even if it's improved, won't it only be useful if people know about it?  My initial thinking is that we should recommend this, as it would form an important part of the bigger goal of improving awareness and accessibility, but I'd like to hear other views.

Recommendation 3
My broad question on this one is whether we would be better served separating the 'WHOIS priority' and 'compliance' parts of this into completely separate findings and recommendations?  While these are clearly linked, our expectations seem to be quite distinct, and it seems to me that there is potential for confusion if we roll them together - i.e. the 'priority' issue will not be resolved by simply having more or better compliance, and the 'compliance' issues won't be resolved by having a WHOIS tsar or similar.  I think we risk having people think we're talking about one or the other, rather than both, if we leave them together.  Depending on what others think about separating these two issues, with dedicated findings and recommendations for each, I'd be happy to assist with the detail.

Recommendation 5
Just in case it was missed, I wanted to restate my question on recommendation 5: are the new edits on timing only intended to apply to the data accuracy recommendations, or more broadly to all of our recommendations?  I've read the notes from the last call and gather that it is intended to put some pretty clear timing expectations around this recommendation, and I strongly support that.  What wasn't clear to me from the call notes was whether having similarly clear timing expectations for our other recommendations was discussed (noting that the actual timing/expectations may be different for each recommendation)?

I apologise if I've missed any other outstanding redrafts, and would appreciate any comments and updates that anyone is able to share in advance of, or in addition to, the call notes.

Cheers,

Peter



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 
 and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 
 review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the 
 intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all 
 copies of the original message. 

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. 
MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/96992fb8/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Wed Apr 11 09:21:08 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:21:08 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proxy Privacy recommendations
In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33523B0628@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <CBAB174E.18E79%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Please read Susan, Seth, James and Peter's proposed amendments to the Proxy, Privacy Recommendations (+ findings) in anticipation of your call scheduled for today at 17:00 UTC.
See attached.
You will also find Peter's explanations.

Note that this material is available on your private wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report

Thanks,

Kind regards

Alice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/39c090a2/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SK 10 April.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24293 bytes
Desc: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SK 10 April.docx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/39c090a2/DraftrevisedProxy-Privacy-SK10April.docx 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PN explanation.docx
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 155298 bytes
Desc: PN explanation.docx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/39c090a2/PNexplanation.docx 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Wed Apr 11 09:23:00 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:23:00 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call today @ 17:00 UTC
Message-ID: <CBAB1A14.18E93%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Your next conference call is scheduled for:


**Wednesday, 11 April 2012**

17:00 UTC

Please check your local time at:
http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Policy+RT+-+11+April&iso=20120411T17&ah=1&am=30

PASSWORD:  27318 followed by #

Agenda:
https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+27+-+11+April+2012

Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/
Audio-cast (silent observers): http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u

Dial-in numbers:
Please find below a table which encapsulates dial-in numbers for your countries of residence.
Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list which is available at:  http://www.adigo.com/icann/

Australia       1 800 009 820
1 800 036 775
Sydney  T       +61 290372962
Melbourne       T       +61 399996500
Brisbane        T       +61 731777546

Austria L - 0 800 295 858
M - 0 800 295 138
T - +43 720 882 638

Belgium L - 0800 79210
M ? 0800 79218
T - +32 78 480 286

Brazil  L - 0800 891 1597
M - 0800 891 1598
T - +55 613 717 2040

Canada  1 800 550 6865
T - +1 213 233 3193

France  0800 90 25 56
T - +33 170618347

Germany L -  0800 1016 120
G - M 0800 1016 124

Russia  8 10 8002 535 3011
T - +7 499 650 7835
United Kingdom  0800 032 6646
T  - +44 207 099 0867

United States   1 800 550 6865
T  - +1 213 233 3193


T ? local toll number ; M ? mobile preferred number ; L ? landline preferred number

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for this call.

Thank you,

Very best regards

Alice
Alice E. Jansen
--------------------------
ICANN
Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews
alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>
Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64
Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56
Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48
Skype: alice_jansen_icann
--------------------------
6, Rond Point Schuman
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

--
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/20120411/f1b627d3/attachment.html 

From susank at fb.com  Wed Apr 11 16:33:42 2012
From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:33:42 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] For discussion Recommendation 5
Message-ID: <CBAB0076.18A56%skawaguchi@fb.com>

I reviewed the NORC study again it was a good refresher.    In my mind we have at least two choices in wording on the rec. as the comments indicated we do not use the same terminology in the recommendation as the study did.
Current language


  1.  ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of unreachable WHOIS registrations (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months.


ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of undeliverable (also mentions unreliable) WHOIS registrations (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months


I think it would be abundantly clear if we used the term substantial failure in the recommendation

ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations with a substantial failure (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months


Page 3 of the study outlines Accuracy Groups



Margin of error (4)


No failure


Met all three criteria fully - deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confirmed ownership and correctness of all details during interview


353


23,117,442


22.8%


1.4%


Minimal failure


All criteria met but minor fault noted by registrant during interview


17


1,101,176


1.1%


0.2%


Name unable to be linked to address, but able to locate registrant and confirm ownership


312


23,024,007


22.7%


2.2%


Limited failure


Deliverable address, name linked and/or located, but unable to interview registrant to obtain confirmation.


365


24,893,476


24.6%


1.7%


Substantial failure


Undeliverable address and/or unlinkable name, however registrant located. Unable to interview registrant to obtain confirmation.


109


7,202,472


7.1%


0.9%


Deliverable address, but unable to link or even locate the registrant, removing any chance of interview.


177


13,949,721


13.8%


2.2%


Full failure


Failed on all criteria - undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview



Susan Kawaguchi

Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/562d864b/attachment.html 

From kathy at kathykleiman.com  Wed Apr 11 16:36:49 2012
From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:36:49 -0400
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - KK
In-Reply-To: <4F85ACCA.8070207@kathykleiman.com>
References: <010c01cd17a6$ca41c3d0$5ec54b70$@reiss@lex-ip.com>
	<636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33523B0628@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
	<012201cd17a9$a0984ce0$e1c8e6a0$@reiss@lex-ip.com>
	<4F85ACCA.8070207@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <4F85B321.4090601@kathykleiman.com>

Hi All,

In last week's meeting, someone noted that the tone of this set of 
findings is different than the tone of our original findings. I have 
done some research, and looked both at our original report and our 
presentation slides in CR, and they are different (e.g., from the 
Executive Summary: "Privacy and proxy services have arisen to fill an 
ICANN policy vacuum. There services are clearly meeting a market demand 
and it is equally clear that these service are complicating the Whois 
landscape. ")

So I've worked on a revision would use our earlier findings too, and 
added it to this text.
Best and great tx to Peter and Seth for moving things forward,
Kathy
p.s. sorry for the late distribution; I'm trying to use my new machines 
at work (announcement soon!) and tripping over everything :-)

:
> Hi All,
> I see a lot of language flying around in the middle of the night 
> (thank you!) and I'm going to put up a notice of concern.  I see us 
> finalizing language, when I thought we were using the language to try 
> to reach agreement on key issues.
>
> In last week's meeting, someone (not me), noted that the tone of this 
> set of findings is different than the tone of our original findings. I 
> have done some research, and looked both at our original report and 
> our presentation slides in CR, and it's true, they are very different 
> (e.g., from the Executive Summary: "Privacy and proxy services have 
> arisen to fill an ICANN policy vacuum. There services are clearly 
> meeting a market demand and it is equally clear that these service are 
> complicating the Whois landscape. "
>
> I am working on a revision that would include more of the moderate 
> tone we used earlier, and add it to this text. I'll circulate it 
> shortly, but wanted to let you know. I think we are still much more on 
> the concepts, than on the exact language -- and on consensus, rather 
> than division.
>
> Best and great tx to Peter and Seth for moving us towards better 
> agreement,
> Kathy
>
>
> :
>>
>> Sorry Peter.  I thought I heard you typing over there in Australia!
>>
>> *From:*Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:55 PM
>> *To:* Seth M Reiss; 'Emily Taylor'; 'Alice Jansen'
>> *Cc:* 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'Kathy Kleiman'; jbladel at godaddy.com
>> *Subject:* RE: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx 
>> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>> Hi Seth, Emily, and all,
>>
>> Thanks again for all the good work on this -- I was just about to 
>> send through these comments, when Seth's latest mail came through.
>>
>> In short, I'm generally comfortable with where this is going and have 
>> put some proposed edits in the document, and explanations below:
>>
>> ?My main concern is not with the substance as such, but with the very 
>> indirect wording currently used in the first paragraph: e.g. ' that 
>> ICANN ... give urgent consideration /_to the manner(s) in which it 
>> might_/ regulate and oversee ... '.  To my reading, this would 
>> effectively ask ICANN to scope its /_implementation options for X_/, 
>> without actually taking the step of clearly recommending that they 
>> /_do X_/.  There are also some other parts of that paragraph where 
>> the drafting is so nuanced that I expect others will not know what we 
>> mean, or why we have been so indirect.  I've offered some alternative 
>> wording for this, which I hope finds the balance between being clear 
>> about what we want (i.e. some kind of clear and consistent regulation 
>> and oversight, noting that broad consultation will be required, and 
>> that several implementation paths are possible) while avoiding being 
>> prescriptive about how this could/should be achieved.  I'm not wedded 
>> to this wording, but just want a formulation that is clear on the 
>> recommended outcome.
>>
>> ?I'm comfortable with including the disclosure/affiliation reference
>>
>> ?I'm happy to look for alternative formulations to avoid any 
>> sensitivity associated with 'accreditation', and Kathy's suggested 
>> wording around standards/contracts/certification looks promising -- 
>> for this reason, I have not edited those parts, and will wait to 
>> review Kathy's suggestions
>>
>> ?I agree with Seth that the paragraph with references to graduated 
>> penalties leading to de-accreditation etc could be dropped, but I'd 
>> like to see how this sits with all our other final recommendations 
>> before making a final call, to make sure that we've got a consistent 
>> message across our recommendations about the need for a graduated 
>> range of compliance tools (including incentives). For now, I've 
>> proposed a minor edit in the attached to include the word 'graduated' 
>> in the previous incentives+sanctions paragraph, so that we don't 
>> accidentally lose that idea if the whole penalties paragraph is removed.
>>
>> ?I don't understand the objection to the last paragraph. This is very 
>> similar to wording we had agreed in Dakar (i.e. our fallback), and 
>> I'm not sure what has changed?
>>
>> Unfortunately, I won't be able to make tonight's call again, but am 
>> planning to circulate written comments on recommendations 3 and 17 in 
>> advance of the call, and am happy to discuss any of this online.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> *From:*Seth M Reiss [mailto:seth.reiss at lex-ip.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 11 April 2012 3:49 PM
>> *To:* 'Emily Taylor'; 'Alice Jansen'
>> *Cc:* 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Nettlefold, Peter; 'Kathy Kleiman'; 
>> jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>
>> *Subject:* FW: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx
>>
>> Emily
>>
>> I think the attached draft can be shared during the conference call 
>> tomorrow (my morning).  The drafting team appears to have consensus 
>> on this language except for whether the second and last paragraph on 
>> page 2 of the draft should be included at all.  It may be we can 
>> resolve this during the call, I am not sure.  Given the various time 
>> zones at play, not each of our sub-team members has necessarily had 
>> the opportunity to comment on each other's comments, but almost.
>>
>> I also think the sub-team believes this draft is a substantially 
>> improvement over the "fallback to Senegal" option.
>>
>> I want to take this opportunity to compliment to sub-team members on 
>> their maturity and malleability.
>>
>> Seth
>>
>> *From:*Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank at fb.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:20 AM
>> *To:* James M. Bladel; Seth M Reiss; 'Kathy Kleiman'
>> *Cc:* 'Nettlefold, Peter'; Susan Kawaguchi
>> *Subject:* Re: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I think we are going in the right direction.  I have added in 
>> language I proposed on April 3rd and made one other revision to the 
>> document.
>>
>> I am not comfortable with losing the recommendation that the 
>> registrars are expected to disclose proxy/privacy service providers 
>> that they are "affiliated" with or at the very least they do business 
>> with if they have a controlling interest in the service provider.
>>
>> Susan Kawaguchi
>>
>> Domain Name Manager
>>
>> Facebook Legal Dept.
>>
>> Phone - 650 485-6064
>>
>> *From: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com 
>> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
>> *Date: *Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:19:10 -0700
>> *To: *Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss at lex-ip.com 
>> <mailto:seth.reiss at lex-ip.com>>, 'Kathy Kleiman' 
>> <kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>> *Cc: *"'Nettlefold, Peter'" <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au 
>> <mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>>, 'Susan Kawaguchi' 
>> <susank at fb.com <mailto:susank at fb.com>>
>> *Subject: *RE: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx
>>
>> Team:
>>
>> I am more comfortable with this language, but maintain my objection 
>> to the last paragraph.
>>
>> Thanks--
>>
>>
>> J.
>>
>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>     Subject: RE: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx
>>     From: "Seth M Reiss" <seth.reiss at lex-ip.com
>>     <mailto:seth.reiss at lex-ip.com>>
>>     Date: Tue, April 10, 2012 12:09 pm
>>     To: "'Kathy Kleiman'" <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>     <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>>     Cc: "'Nettlefold, Peter'" <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au
>>     <mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>>, "'Susan
>>     Kawaguchi'" <susank at fb.com <mailto:susank at fb.com>>,
>>     <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
>>
>>     While I am not sure I share your concerns about the word
>>     "accreditation" I also do not mind your pursuing alternative
>>     language that may be comfortable to all.  I want to avoid using
>>     the word "voluntary" but I am also OK avoiding the word
>>     "mandatory" for now.
>>
>>     Thanks for your help with this Katy.
>>
>>     *From:*Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com]
>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:37 AM
>>     *To:* Seth M Reiss
>>     *Cc:* 'Nettlefold, Peter'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; jbladel at godaddy.com
>>     <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>     *Subject:* Re: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx
>>
>>     Dear Seth and All,
>>     The word "accreditation" is still making me very uneasy --  given
>>     my experience with the very narrow "accreditation" of UDRP
>>     service providers. Accreditation is a narrow, ICANN-led process
>>     with a few "winners."  Voluntary standards, or even mandatory
>>     standards with certification is much broader, and continues a
>>     range of services, choices, in local languages, with local data
>>     protection laws, etc.
>>
>>     Is anyone opposed to expanding the concept, e.g.,
>>     FROM==> "The review team considered that one possible approach to
>>     achieving this would be to establish, through a policy
>>     development process or other appropriate means, an accreditation
>>     system for all proxy/privacy service providers...."
>>
>>     TO ==> .  The review team considered that one possible approach
>>     to achieving this would be to establish, through a policy
>>     development process or other appropriate means, /*a set of
>>     standards to be met by* /all proxy/privacy service providers.
>>
>>     and later....
>>
>>     FROM "to become accredited..."
>>     TO "to agree to the rules through some process of contract or
>>     certification..."
>>
>>     I'll try to created an edited version later today, but want to
>>     float this now.
>>     Best,
>>     Kathy
>>
>>     OK. let's see if we can get something that we all can live with
>>     by this Wednesday.  My feeling (and it's just me talking) is that
>>     we already have something that is much more useful than our
>>     fallback position (draft findings and recommendations) and I
>>     would be disappointed to go back that the draft position.
>>
>>     I took the last draft, made some revisions (red-lined format) to
>>     try to address the issue of process, deleted out those comments
>>      that I thought had been addressed or are no longer relevant, and
>>     added one more comment.
>>
>>     By the way my comments are marked ZW for some reason.
>>
>>
>> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended 
>> recipient(s)
>> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any 
>> unauthorized
>> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not 
>> the
>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and 
>> destroy all
>> copies of the original message.
>>
>> This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate.
>> MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, 
>> undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway 
>> products please visit www.axway.com <http://www.axway.com>.
>>
>> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/81cfc10a/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WRT revised draft - kk ed.DOCX
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 27243 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/81cfc10a/WRTreviseddraft-kked.DOCX 

From emily at emilytaylor.eu  Wed Apr 11 16:51:34 2012
From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:51:34 +0100
Subject: [Rt4-whois] For discussion Recommendation 5
In-Reply-To: <CBAB0076.18A56%skawaguchi@fb.com>
References: <CBAB0076.18A56%skawaguchi@fb.com>
Message-ID: <CAKWYFscHFy-MSn3jfttvCFb57URnZxL0c+sXfqMfAw80TYctdA@mail.gmail.com>

Nicely done, Susan

Thank you.

How about "substantial failure or full failure (as defined in the..."



On 11 April 2012 17:33, Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com> wrote:

>   I reviewed the NORC study again it was a good refresher.    In my mind
> we have at least two choices in wording on the rec. as the comments
> indicated we do not use the same terminology in the recommendation as the
> study did.
>  Current language
>
>
>    1.
>
>    ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of unreachable
>    WHOIS registrations (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study,
>    2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12
>    months.
>
>
>     ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of undeliverable
>    (also mentions unreliable) WHOIS registrations (as defined by the NORC
>    Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over
>    the following 12 months
>
>
>     I think it would be abundantly clear if we used the term substantial
>    failure in the recommendation
>
>    ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS
>    registrations with a substantial failure (as defined by the NORC Data
>    Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the
>    following 12 months
>
>
>     Page 3 of the study outlines Accuracy Groups
>
>
>              Margin of error (4)
>
>    No failure
>
>    Met all three criteria fully - deliverable address, name linked to
>    address, and registrant confirmed ownership and correctness of all details
>    during interview
>
>    353
>
>    23,117,442
>
>    22.8%
>
>    1.4%
>
>    Minimal failure
>
>    All criteria met but minor fault noted by registrant during interview
>
>    17
>
>    1,101,176
>
>    1.1%
>
>    0.2%
>
>    Name unable to be linked to address, but able to locate registrant and
>    confirm ownership
>
>    312
>
>    23,024,007
>
>    22.7%
>
>    2.2%
>
>    Limited failure
>
>    Deliverable address, name linked and/or located, but unable to
>    interview registrant to obtain confirmation.
>
>    365
>
>    24,893,476
>
>    24.6%
>
>    1.7%
>
>    Substantial failure
>
>    Undeliverable address and/or unlinkable name, however registrant
>    located. Unable to interview registrant to obtain confirmation.
>
>    109
>
>    7,202,472
>
>    7.1%
>
>    0.9%
>
>    Deliverable address, but unable to link or even locate the registrant,
>    removing any chance of interview.
>
>    177
>
>    13,949,721
>
>    13.8%
>
>    2.2%
>
>    Full failure
>
>    Failed on all criteria - undeliverable address and unlinkable,
>    missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview
>
>    Susan Kawaguchi
>
>  Domain Name Manager
> Facebook Legal Dept.
>
>   Phone - 650 485-6064
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120411/8e539c86/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Wed Apr 11 16:57:20 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:57:20 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adobe room URL
Message-ID: <CBAB8490.18F65%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Please make sure to join the Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/
--
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/20120411/e0ee23e0/attachment.html 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Apr 11 16:58:09 2012
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:58:09 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] For discussion Recommendation 5
Message-ID: <20120411095809.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.1b1b3df0de.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/3e94a983/attachment.html 

From susank at fb.com  Wed Apr 11 16:43:42 2012
From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:43:42 +0000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Input for today/tomorrow's call [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33523B07B6@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
Message-ID: <CBAB012D.18A59%skawaguchi@fb.com>

Hi Peter,

I apologize for not responding to your question on my revision of recommendation 5.  First of all, it is really recommendation 7 sorry for the mix up.   Although, rec 7 has been inserted in with data accuracy the way I read it pertained to all the recommendations and not just the data accuracy recommendations.

For clarity we may want to make it a recommendation all on its own.

I did check the AOC and Lynn sent around the language a couple weeks ago.  ICANN has 6 months to act on our recommendations but I still would like to require a status report within 3 months of the publishing of the final report to insure that
1)  progress is being made
2)  the implementation plans and timelines makes sense

Once again, my fear is that ICANN will continue in a similar path we have seen for years and push back on the implementation.


Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064

From: "Nettlefold, Peter" <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au<mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:50:55 +1000
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Input for today/tomorrow's call [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hello again all,

Unfortunately, I will again be missing tomorrow?s call, so I?m sending through my comments in advance.

Privacy/proxy
I?ve made some edits and suggestions directly to the small group working on the privacy-proxy recommendations. I?m not sure where that will end up before the call, but I am encouraged that the group is making good progress.

Recommendation 17
In short, I really like Emily?s new version.  I?m interested in other views, but to me this gets to the heart of (this part of) the accessibility issue, and is clear, actionable, and should avoid the confusion we had with our earlier version.  My one question on this is whether we should also explicitly recommend that ICANN actively and widely promote this new/improved service ? i.e. even if it?s improved, won?t it only be useful if people know about it?  My initial thinking is that we should recommend this, as it would form an important part of the bigger goal of improving awareness and accessibility, but I?d like to hear other views.

Recommendation 3
My broad question on this one is whether we would be better served separating the ?WHOIS priority? and ?compliance? parts of this into completely separate findings and recommendations?  While these are clearly linked, our expectations seem to be quite distinct, and it seems to me that there is potential for confusion if we roll them together ? i.e. the ?priority? issue will not be resolved by simply having more or better compliance, and the ?compliance? issues won?t be resolved by having a WHOIS tsar or similar.  I think we risk having people think we?re talking about one or the other, rather than both, if we leave them together.  Depending on what others think about separating these two issues, with dedicated findings and recommendations for each, I?d be happy to assist with the detail.

Recommendation 5
Just in case it was missed, I wanted to restate my question on recommendation 5: are the new edits on timing only intended to apply to the data accuracy recommendations, or more broadly to all of our recommendations?  I?ve read the notes from the last call and gather that it is intended to put some pretty clear timing expectations around this recommendation, and I strongly support that.  What wasn?t clear to me from the call notes was whether having similarly clear timing expectations for our other recommendations was discussed (noting that the actual timing/expectations may be different for each recommendation)?

I apologise if I?ve missed any other outstanding redrafts, and would appreciate any comments and updates that anyone is able to share in advance of, or in addition to, the call notes.

Cheers,

Peter


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate.
MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto: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/20120411/4d17c4a8/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Wed Apr 11 18:04:02 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:04:02 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance figures
In-Reply-To: <CAKWYFsesA4wyYf-UDkovmJJF26HujZ8dLq2Nb9xtg=UN2UMnhg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CBAB9402.18F6F%alice.jansen@icann.org>

See figures below.
--
From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:16:38 -0700
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Fwd: Whois RT

Sorry - forgot to "reply all"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
Date: 4 April 2012 09:16
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Whois RT
To: denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>


Hi Denise

Thank you very much for that explanation, and I do appreciate the difficulties that you are talking about.  I think your suggestion of going back 3 years instead of 6 sounds practical and useful.  What we want to do is talk about the compliance effort really from 2009 onwards, once the department started to move from "start up" phase to gearing up to meet community expectations.  I am also aware that when we met with Compliance in Jan 2011, there were references to open positions, temporary staff etc, and I would like to have a better understanding of that for our report.  It is important, because of course implementation of WHOIS policy is at the heart of our mandate, and you can see from community feedback, and staff feedback, that it is viewed as an area for improvement.

Hope this is helpful.

Kind regards

Emily


On 3 April 2012 23:30, Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>> wrote:
I'd like to get a clearer sense of what information the Team must have to validate its points (reach its conclusions about current Whois policy and implementation) and confirm what can be provided in the short term.  I was hoping a discussion could enable us to reach this point more quickly.

In the last couple of years ICANN has instituted new internal systems that make it easier to track and report in detail on staffing, budget and expenditures. As with many "start-ups," new systems are forward looking and don't incorporate historic records.  To go back to 2006 and indicate for each year which positions were open for how many days, and to determine how much budget was allocated to the Compliance function each year and how much was spent (when Compliance was located in a different department and was part of a different budget section prior to 2010) can be done, but will take a significant amount of Staff time during a particularly busy period for our budget/HR Staff (who currently are preparing the next fiscal year budget).

I want to be as helpful as possible, but I'm also trying to convey that more detailed historic information is not available at the push of a button and can't be provided without cost/staff time. While Staff is committed to providing the information the Team needs to fulfill its mission, I'd like to confirm how critical this level of detail is to the Team's final report.  Can the Team complete its recommendations with the budget and staffing histories provided thus far, or with information on budget, spends, and position vacancies going back 3 years instead of 6?

I'm looking for feedback on whether there's another (quicker) way to meet the Team's needs given your final report deadline.

Thanks
Denise




Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
+1.408.429.3072<tel:%2B1.408.429.3072> mobile
+1.310.578.8632<tel:%2B1.310.578.8632> direct


On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>> wrote:
Thank you for this Denise

Please would you also include the unfilled vacant positions over time in the same way.  When we had our presentation from compliance last January, we heard that positions had remained open for a long time in some cases, and to complete the picture on staffing we also need to know this.

On budget vs actual spend, I think the query is quite straight forward, isn't it?  We need to know the amount allocated in each year's budget cycle for spend on compliance (which I assume is a budget line), vs the actual spend (so that we can look at the variance of actual vs budget).

Thanks

Emily


On 3 April 2012 00:31, Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Emily (cc Team):

Below and attached is (corrected) historical data on Compliance staffing, including figures for temporary staff support.  The discrepancy between the last set of data provided by the Compliance Team and the staffing information provided in slides presented to the Team in January 2011 was due to the inclusion of temporary staff support in the staffing numbers in the slides.  The previous set of figures I forwarded included only full-time staff.  In addition, a staff person was transferred from another department into Compliance and the previous data reflected her start date incorrectly.  Please let me know if you have any further questions on this.

When you have a chance, could you please call me regarding historic budget information that the Team needs?

Thanks
Denise

Denise Michel
ICANN
Advisor to the President & CEO
denise.michel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
+1.408.429.3072<tel:%2B1.408.429.3072> mobile
+1.310.578.8632<tel:%2B1.310.578.8632> direct


Roles   2006    2007    (1st half)
2008    (2nd half)
2008    2009    (1st half)
2010    (2nd half)
2010    2011    2012    2013
Head of Compliance                      1       1       1       1       0       1       1       1
Registrar-Registry Compliance   1       3       3       3       4       5       5       7       9       12
Performance
Measurement & Reporting                                                         1       1       1
Risk & Audit Management                 1       1       1       1       0               1       1
Temporary services                      0       1       1       3       1
Total by year   1       3       5       6       7       10      6       9       12      15



_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto: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<tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811> ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322<tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322>
emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>

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

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





--


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



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

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

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




--


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



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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/aa6a26fd/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/aa6a26fd/ATT00001.txt 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Wed Apr 11 18:20:07 2012
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:20:07 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft Advisory from 2010, FYI
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQFS+Z8mxtTvcCHK=XMFG6tVX_pYmmzggBak39VsxNkMcA@mail.gmail.com>

Attached, FYI:  Draft Advisory on RAA Subsection 3.7.7.3 posted 14 May
2010; and Summary Analysis of Comments on the Draft Advisory

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/2160ad10/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: draft-advisory-raa-3773-14may10-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 218568 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/2160ad10/draft-advisory-raa-3773-14may10-en.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pdfE0bAMB3kDY.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 120911 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/2160ad10/pdfE0bAMB3kDY.pdf 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Apr 11 18:25:51 2012
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:25:51 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft Advisory from 2010, FYI
Message-ID: <20120411112551.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.22141ce4d8.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/1f5ef913/attachment.html 

From denise.michel at icann.org  Wed Apr 11 18:38:11 2012
From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:38:11 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft Advisory from 2010, FYI
In-Reply-To: <20120411112551.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.22141ce4d8.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20120411112551.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.22141ce4d8.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <CAPcHvQGmi2H-JoXz5RSGQODC7ZnkZAdLTfn7R3UHa95PkYEE4g@mail.gmail.com>

The presentations and audiocast are available at this link:

http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15439

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, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>wrote:

> Thanks, Denise.
>
> Does ICANN have a transcript of the session in Cartagena?  I'm especially
> interested in the comments submitted by Wendy Seltzer.
>
> Thanks--
>
> J.
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft Advisory from 2010, FYI
> From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
> Date: Wed, April 11, 2012 1:20 pm
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org
>
> Attached, FYI:  Draft Advisory on RAA Subsection 3.7.7.3 posted 14 May
> 2010; and Summary Analysis of Comments on the Draft Advisory
>
> 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
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120411/ae81c653/attachment.html 

From jbladel at godaddy.com  Wed Apr 11 18:56:59 2012
From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:56:59 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft Advisory from 2010, FYI
Message-ID: <20120411115659.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.b7dc57ee47.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/feb6f971/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Wed Apr 11 20:11:34 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:11:34 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Note pod content - 11 April
In-Reply-To: <4741362.26025.1334169698120.JavaMail.breezesvc@pacna7app01>
Message-ID: <CBABB168.18F87%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,
Please find enclosed the pod content of your conference call held on 11 April.
A preliminary report will be drafted.
Thanks,
Kind regards
Alice --

WHOIS Policy Review Team Conference call ? 11 April  - 17:00 UTC

AGENDA

1. Roll call & apologies

2. Adopt preliminary report (4 April)

3. Continuing walk through of ICANN Staff comments and queries on Recommendations, starting at Recommendation 12 (Denise)

4. Update from action item penholders https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+Items+-+Spring+2012 and ongoing review of proposed new texts https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report

 *   Data Accuracy recommendations

 *   Proxy & privacy recommendations

 *   Recommendation 3 & 17

 *   Deaccreditation

 *   IDN recommendations

 *   Language on timeframes and implementation paths

 *   Compliance recommendations

5. Next steps

6. A.O.B

PARTICIPANTS

Susan Kawaguchi, Kathy Kleiman, James Bladel, Lynn Goodendorf, Emily Taylor, Michael Yakushev, Seth Reiss, Sarmad Hussain

ICANN STAFF

Olof Nordling, Alice Jansen, Denise Michel

APOLOGIES

Peter Nettlefold, Bill Smith, Lutz Donnerhacke, Omar Kaminski, Sharon Lemon

NOTES

1. Agenda amendments - A.O.B - WHOIS><ICANN Staff call + data validation (Larry Strickling letter) -

Preliminary report adopted

2. Rec 5 - Susan - substantial failure - James avoid undeliverable. Full failure/substantial failure. Need clear language - contactable not clear enough. ET proposal to adopt substantial/full failure terms. James: redefine those terms. Body of report - (SK) + (JB) to insert references into draft footnotes. Proposal to have a references section. (SK) to circulate finding, agreed recommendations, add wordings. 4/3 paragraphs of findings.

3. Staff comments

Rec 12: Voluntary discussions with proxy providers that ICANN has no contractual relationships with. Proxy services - big in RAA negotiations. Depending on how negotiations play out and on the Team's recommendations, this may require a GNSO consensus policy.

Rec 13

Update on this topic next week. Need to explore various ways this could be implemented

Rec 14 RAA negotiations would come into play.

Rec 15 Staff is exploring a different range of ways this might be implemented and what the implications are.

Rec 16 Currently RAA hold registrant holder responsible. In 2010 a draft - verify terms in RAA. Draft advisory submitted for comments.

(KK) negotiations and studies going on: do we want to change our recommendations in light of that or shall we keep a high level approach?

(JB) If group to reach out to Staff for RAA negotiations update, could open up to accusations then will need to recuse myself.

(SR) should not respon to ongoing negotiations. Proposal to note that ongoing studies and negotiations

(JB) advisoy draft not welcomed in Cartagena.

(LG) come back to primary purpose: evaluate effectiveness WHOIS. We can certainly acknowledge activities and progress but at this point in time, the issue is there. Make sure that identified anything that hinders WHOIS.

(DM) Not endorsing nor encouraging this advisory approach but will provide summary of comments so that Team can get a clearer picture of discussion at time.

Rec 17 Feasible recommendation but investigations needed to implement recommendation. Connection to IRD WG. Staff noted issues that need to be explored: capacity planning, technical scaling, legal issues.

(ET) enhancing current Internet service so no huge relocation or reassignment of data.

Rec 18 - Rec 19 - Rec 20

Not ICANN's remit to determine encoding. That is fully within the role of IETF. addtional resources would be needed

Rec 18 (SH) standards have not been adopted yet. Why and suggestions?

(DM) serious concerns regarding compatability issue. Happy to provide additional material. Call with Steve Sheng to be scheduled (IDN subteam)

Team thanks DM

4 Proxy/Privacy recommendations

Progress ongoing. Subteam needs to review KK's comments. (ET) thanks for work. (KK)'s draft fleshes out findings and has references to where material is. Please circulate a final draft by Friday, 13 April. (LG) volunteered to help with drafting. (ET) - Clear difference between privacy and proxy services. Better use of time may be to go back to draft report.

5. Recommendation 3

Waiting for information from compliance team which will influence findings and recommendations.

Historic figures from Staffing. Awaiting updated figures incl. on spendings.

(DM): Stacy Burnette's slides in London included staffing chart that included full time staff. Discrepancy because of that. (SK) to propose some language. (ET) to integrate (PN), (KK) and (SK)'s comments.

6. Recommendation 17

(DM) highlight areas where unclear + implementation .

(KK) to propose new iteration - if substantive edits, this rec will be back on action items list.

7 Deaccreditation

Refer to slide from Maguy Serad and Bill's comment. Mention incentives when talking about penalties - holistic approach. (JB) to circulate language by next call

8 IDN recommendations

Conversation with Steve Cheng and come up with draft

Subteam will have a call with Steve Cheng and are working on clarifying draft recommendations and hope to share language.

9 Language on timeframes

No follow-up action is required on this except make it more general. Language adopted and will be a separate recommendation at the end of data accuracy recommendation. 6 months from when Board received final report. List timing from AoC.

10. Compliance recommendations

No progress. More work to be done. (AJ) to organize subteam call to discussion findings and recommendations within next week or so.

11. Next steps

A.O.B

Call with ICANN Staff scheduled for Monday, 16 April - 22:30 UTC

Discussion on validation reverted to next call.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120411/7b388906/attachment.html 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Wed Apr 11 20:36:52 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:36:52 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] DOODLE Poll to complete - Wed, 18 April
In-Reply-To: <CBA46E02.18ACE%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CBABB7C8.18FA5%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

Consistent with your decision to schedule weekly calls in April, please find enclosed a doodle poll which will help us determine the most convenient time slot for your call that will take place on Wednesday, 18 April.

http://www.doodle.com/trwfa8qmzac3dh87

Please complete this poll by Friday, 13 April ? end of your business day.

Thanks in advance.

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/20120411/e95d6c06/attachment.html 

From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Wed Apr 11 23:16:25 2012
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:16:25 +1000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Input for today/tomorrow's call [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <CBAB012D.18A59%skawaguchi@fb.com>
References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33523B07B6@EMB01.dept.gov.au>
	<CBAB012D.18A59%skawaguchi@fb.com>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33523B08B8@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hi Susan,

Thanks for the quick reply.

This makes perfect sense to me, and I support it.

Cheers,

Peter


From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank at fb.com]
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2012 2:44 AM
To: Nettlefold, Peter; rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Input for today/tomorrow's call [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Peter,

I apologize for not responding to your question on my revision of recommendation 5.  First of all, it is really recommendation 7 sorry for the mix up.   Although, rec 7 has been inserted in with data accuracy the way I read it pertained to all the recommendations and not just the data accuracy recommendations.

For clarity we may want to make it a recommendation all on its own.

I did check the AOC and Lynn sent around the language a couple weeks ago.  ICANN has 6 months to act on our recommendations but I still would like to require a status report within 3 months of the publishing of the final report to insure that
1)  progress is being made
2)  the implementation plans and timelines makes sense

Once again, my fear is that ICANN will continue in a similar path we have seen for years and push back on the implementation.


Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064

From: "Nettlefold, Peter" <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au<mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:50:55 +1000
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Input for today/tomorrow's call [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hello again all,

Unfortunately, I will again be missing tomorrow's call, so I'm sending through my comments in advance.

Privacy/proxy
I've made some edits and suggestions directly to the small group working on the privacy-proxy recommendations. I'm not sure where that will end up before the call, but I am encouraged that the group is making good progress.

Recommendation 17
In short, I really like Emily's new version.  I'm interested in other views, but to me this gets to the heart of (this part of) the accessibility issue, and is clear, actionable, and should avoid the confusion we had with our earlier version.  My one question on this is whether we should also explicitly recommend that ICANN actively and widely promote this new/improved service - i.e. even if it's improved, won't it only be useful if people know about it?  My initial thinking is that we should recommend this, as it would form an important part of the bigger goal of improving awareness and accessibility, but I'd like to hear other views.

Recommendation 3
My broad question on this one is whether we would be better served separating the 'WHOIS priority' and 'compliance' parts of this into completely separate findings and recommendations?  While these are clearly linked, our expectations seem to be quite distinct, and it seems to me that there is potential for confusion if we roll them together - i.e. the 'priority' issue will not be resolved by simply having more or better compliance, and the 'compliance' issues won't be resolved by having a WHOIS tsar or similar.  I think we risk having people think we're talking about one or the other, rather than both, if we leave them together.  Depending on what others think about separating these two issues, with dedicated findings and recommendations for each, I'd be happy to assist with the detail.

Recommendation 5
Just in case it was missed, I wanted to restate my question on recommendation 5: are the new edits on timing only intended to apply to the data accuracy recommendations, or more broadly to all of our recommendations?  I've read the notes from the last call and gather that it is intended to put some pretty clear timing expectations around this recommendation, and I strongly support that.  What wasn't clear to me from the call notes was whether having similarly clear timing expectations for our other recommendations was discussed (noting that the actual timing/expectations may be different for each recommendation)?

I apologise if I've missed any other outstanding redrafts, and would appreciate any comments and updates that anyone is able to share in advance of, or in addition to, the call notes.

Cheers,

Peter


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate.
MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 
 and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 
 review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the 
 intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all 
 copies of the original message. 

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. 
MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120412/7773f6c9/attachment.html 

From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au  Wed Apr 11 23:21:19 2012
From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:21:19 +1000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] For discussion Recommendation 5 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
In-Reply-To: <20120411095809.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.1b1b3df0de.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
References: <20120411095809.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.1b1b3df0de.wbe@email00.secureserver.net>
Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33523B08D3@EMB01.dept.gov.au>

Hi again all,

Thanks for following this up Susan.

I also agree with using the NORC ?failure? terminology, as this seems the least likely to cause confusion.

Cheers,

Peter

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2012 2:58 AM
To: Emily Taylor; Susan Kawaguchi
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] For discussion Recommendation 5

Agreed.

So long as we avoid "undeliverable", because what are we trying to deliver?

J.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] For discussion Recommendation 5
From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
Date: Wed, April 11, 2012 11:51 am
To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com>>
Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>

Nicely done, Susan

Thank you.

How about "substantial failure or full failure (as defined in the..."


On 11 April 2012 17:33, Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com<mailto:susank at fb.com>> wrote:
I reviewed the NORC study again it was a good refresher.    In my mind we have at least two choices in wording on the rec. as the comments indicated we do not use the same terminology in the recommendation as the study did.
Current language


 1.  ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of unreachable WHOIS registrations (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months.

ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of undeliverable (also mentions unreliable) WHOIS registrations (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months

I think it would be abundantly clear if we used the term substantial failure in the recommendation
ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations with a substantial failure (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months

Page 3 of the study outlines Accuracy Groups


Margin of error (4)

No failure

Met all three criteria fully - deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confirmed ownership and correctness of all details during interview

353

23,117,442

22.8%

1.4%

Minimal failure

All criteria met but minor fault noted by registrant during interview

17

1,101,176

1.1%

0.2%

Name unable to be linked to address, but able to locate registrant and confirm ownership

312

23,024,007

22.7%

2.2%

Limited failure

Deliverable address, name linked and/or located, but unable to interview registrant to obtain confirmation.

365

24,893,476

24.6%

1.7%

Substantial failure

Undeliverable address and/or unlinkable name, however registrant located. Unable to interview registrant to obtain confirmation.

109

7,202,472

7.1%

0.9%

Deliverable address, but unable to link or even locate the registrant, removing any chance of interview.

177

13,949,721

13.8%

2.2%

Full failure

Failed on all criteria - undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview


Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064<tel:650%20485-6064>

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



--


   [cid:~WRD030.jpg]


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

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

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

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


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 
 and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 
 review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the 
 intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all 
 copies of the original message. 

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. 
MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120412/e1fc7f4d/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD030.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: ~WRD030.jpg
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120412/e1fc7f4d/WRD030.jpg 

From alice.jansen at icann.org  Sat Apr 14 23:44:27 2012
From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:44:27 -0700
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Action items - updated
Message-ID: <CBAFD87B.19319%alice.jansen@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,
Please find enclosed your action items list which reflects decisions reached during your last conference call.
This is also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+Items+-+Spring+2012
Thanks,
Kind regards

Alice
Action Items - Spring 2012

 *
 *   Added by Alice Jansen<https://community.icann.org/display/~alice.jansen>, last edited by Alice Jansen<https://community.icann.org/display/~alice.jansen> on Apr 12, 2012  (view change<https://community.icann.org/pages/diffpages.action?pageId=31173652&originalId=31176014>)

 *

 *   Revive call schedule (calls to take place on Wednesdays once a week; first call to take place on Wed, 28 March) ? Alice [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]

 *   Review and submit language of recs 5-9 (Data Accuracy) - Susan [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]
    *   Susan to circulate findings (3/4 paragraphs), agreed recommendations and add wordings (+ define the substantial/full failure terms)
    *   Susan and James to add footnotes references

 *   Review comments submitted to the Team and Denise's recommendation tracking document [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]

 *   Propose alternative language for Proxy and Privacy recommendations -  James + Susan + Peter + Seth + Lynn ;  [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]
    *   Subteam to review comments submitted and to circulate a draft by 13 April

 *   Hold the pen on rec. 3 strategic priority by 28 March -- Emily ; [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]
    *   Emily to integrate comments received
    *   Susan to put forward some language

 *   Denise to circulate draft advisory 2010 and material (recording, notes etc) of Cartagena discussion on this subject matter [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]

 *   Find text on accreditation-- Kathy ; + Hierarchy of enforcement - James [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]
    *   James to circulate language by 28 March (incentives><penalties)

 *   Work on language of rec. 17 Emily; [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]    AGREEMENT REACHED
    *   [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/warning.gif]  Kathy to circulate iterations - if substantive, back on action items list

 *   Review language of recs. on IDNs -- Sarmad + Kathy + Wilfried + Michael
    *   IDN subteam to hold a call with Steve Sheng (Staff to schedule it) and attempt to share language by 28 April

 *   Review your chapters and send redline to Seth + Omar + Alice by 21 March--  13 April

 *   Review body of text in light of comments and integrate changes suggested/required by Members-- Seth + Omar

 *   Draft some language on timeframes and implementation paths in light of the AoC - Susan + Lynn [https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif]   AGREEMENT
    *   Susan to add agreed language to to data accuracy recommendation

 *   Respond to Staff's comments for Community's information - All

 *   Strengthen compliance recommendations and add justification to proposal - Peter + Emily + Bill
    *   Alice to organize a subteam call

--
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/20120414/93c08d21/attachment.html 

From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Sun Apr 15 00:34:12 2012
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:34:12 -0300
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Action items - updated
In-Reply-To: <CBAFD87B.19319%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <CBAFD87B.19319%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAD48TT9OoA0Ho+P2Rh=Pwh90ANEK9YJ39QzdHn69hKp-mmBDFA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Kathy and Seth,

How's our work? Again, and yet, I'm having extreme dificulties in tackling
with my everyday jobs, moreover I'm having dificulties in following the
group discussions closely. I'm trying to do my best and attend as many
conferences I can but it's not enough.

I'm not sure if the best path is to resign and quit the job with the group,
because I understand we're more closely to the end that the middle of work,
and having team members from other coutries besides US gives more
legitimacy and a new process to cover the vacancy should be
contraproducent.

As far as I saw our term finished yesterday (13th), and I'll be busy and
traveling at least until 18th. My dad is still sick, my mom is almost blind
and so the life goes on and I need to priorize them right now.

Cheers,

Omar



2012/4/14 Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>

>  Dear Review Team Members,
> Please find enclosed your action items list which reflects decisions
> reached during your last conference call.
> This is also available at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+Items+-+Spring+2012
> Thanks,
> Kind regards
>
> Alice
> Action Items - Spring 2012
>
>    -
>    - Added by Alice Jansen<https://community.icann.org/display/%7Ealice.jansen>,
>    last edited by Alice Jansen<https://community.icann.org/display/%7Ealice.jansen> on
>    Apr 12, 2012  (view change<https://community.icann.org/pages/diffpages.action?pageId=31173652&originalId=31176014>
>    )
>
>
>    -
>
>
>    - Revive call schedule (calls to take place on Wednesdays once a week;
>    first call to take place on Wed, 28 March) ? Alice
>
>
>    - Review and submit language of recs 5-9 (Data Accuracy) - Susan
>       - *Susan to circulate findings (3/4 paragraphs), agreed
>       recommendations and add wordings (+ define the substantial/full failure
>       terms)*
>       - *Susan and James to add footnotes references*
>
>
>    - Review comments submitted to the Team and Denise's recommendation
>    tracking document
>
>
>    - Propose alternative language for Proxy and Privacy
>    recommendations -  James + Susan + Peter + Seth *+ Lynn* ; * *
>       - *Subteam to review comments submitted and to circulate a draft by
>       13 April*
>
>
>    - Hold the pen on rec. 3 strategic priority by 28 March -- Emily ;
>       - *Emily to integrate comments received *
>       - *Susan to put forward some language*
>
>
>    - *Denise to circulate draft advisory 2010 and material (recording,
>    notes etc) of Cartagena discussion on this subject matter*
>
>
>    - Find text on accreditation-- Kathy ; +* *Hierarchy of enforcement -
>    James* *
>       - *James to circulate language by 28 March (incentives><penalties)*
>
>
>    - Work on language of rec. 17 Emily;    AGREEMENT REACHED
>       -  *Kathy to circulate iterations - if substantive, back on action
>       items list*
>
>
>    - Review language of recs. on IDNs -- Sarmad + Kathy + Wilfried +
>    Michael
>       - *IDN subteam to hold a call with Steve Sheng (Staff to schedule
>       it) and attempt to share language by 28 April*
>
>
>    - Review your chapters and send redline to Seth + Omar + Alice by 21
>    March--  *13** April*
>
>
>    - Review body of text in light of comments and integrate changes
>    suggested/required by Members-- Seth + Omar
>
>
>    - Draft some language on timeframes and implementation paths in light
>    of the AoC - Susan + Lynn   AGREEMENT
>       - *Susan to add agreed language to to data accuracy recommendation*
>
>
>    - Respond to Staff's comments for Community's information - All
>
>
>    - Strengthen compliance recommendations and add justification to
>    proposal - Peter + Emily + Bill
>       - *Alice to organize a subteam call*
>
> --
> *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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120414/abffb5af/attachment.html 

From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com  Sun Apr 15 18:21:29 2012
From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:21:29 -1000
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Action items - updated
In-Reply-To: <CAD48TT9OoA0Ho+P2Rh=Pwh90ANEK9YJ39QzdHn69hKp-mmBDFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CBAFD87B.19319%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<CAD48TT9OoA0Ho+P2Rh=Pwh90ANEK9YJ39QzdHn69hKp-mmBDFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000b01cd1b34$949d2b70$bdd78250$@reiss@lex-ip.com>

Omar

 

Please do not worry about the work.  I am sure we can complete it with any
assistance you may be in a position to offer.   Family should always be a
first priority.

 

So far, no one has forwarded me a chapter for final review.

 

Best,

 

Seth

 

From: Omar Kaminski [mailto:omar at kaminski.adv.br] 
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 2:34 PM
To: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com; kathy at kathykleiman.com
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Action items - updated

 

Dear Kathy and Seth,

How's our work? Again, and yet, I'm having extreme dificulties in tackling
with my everyday jobs, moreover I'm having dificulties in following the
group discussions closely. I'm trying to do my best and attend as many
conferences I can but it's not enough. 

I'm not sure if the best path is to resign and quit the job with the group,
because I understand we're more closely to the end that the middle of work,
and having team members from other coutries besides US gives more legitimacy
and a new process to cover the vacancy should be contraproducent. 

As far as I saw our term finished yesterday (13th), and I'll be busy and
traveling at least until 18th. My dad is still sick, my mom is almost blind
and so the life goes on and I need to priorize them right now.

Cheers,

Omar




2012/4/14 Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>


Dear Review Team Members,


Please find enclosed your action items list which reflects decisions reached
during your last conference call.

This is also available at:
https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+Items+-+Spring+2012

Thanks,

Kind regards

 

Alice


Action Items - Spring 2012


.          

.         Added by  <https://community.icann.org/display/%7Ealice.jansen>
Alice Jansen, last edited by
<https://community.icann.org/display/%7Ealice.jansen> Alice Jansen on Apr
12, 2012  (
<https://community.icann.org/pages/diffpages.action?pageId=31173652&original
Id=31176014> view change)

.          

*	Revive call schedule (calls to take place on Wednesdays once a week;
first call to take place on Wed, 28 March) - Alice
<https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif> 

*	Review and submit language of recs 5-9 (Data Accuracy) - Susan
<https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif>   

*	Susan to circulate findings (3/4 paragraphs), agreed recommendations
and add wordings (+ define the substantial/full failure terms) 
*	Susan and James to add footnotes references

*	Review comments submitted to the Team and Denise's recommendation
tracking document
<https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif> 

*	Propose alternative language for Proxy and Privacy recommendations -
James + Susan + Peter + Seth + Lynn ;
<https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif>   

*	Subteam to review comments submitted and to circulate a draft by 13
April

*	Hold the pen on rec. 3 strategic priority by 28 March -- Emily ;
<https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif>   

*	Emily to integrate comments received 
*	Susan to put forward some language

*	Denise to circulate draft advisory 2010 and material (recording,
notes etc) of Cartagena discussion on this subject matter
<https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif> 

*	Find text on accreditation-- Kathy ; + Hierarchy of enforcement -
James   <https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif>   

*	James to circulate language by 28 March (incentives><penalties)

*	Work on language of rec. 17 Emily;
<https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif>    AGREEMENT
REACHED

*	  <https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/warning.gif>
Kathy to circulate iterations - if substantive, back on action items list

*	Review language of recs. on IDNs -- Sarmad + Kathy + Wilfried +
Michael

*	IDN subteam to hold a call with Steve Sheng (Staff to schedule it)
and attempt to share language by 28 April

*	Review your chapters and send redline to Seth + Omar + Alice by 21
March--  13 April

*	Review body of text in light of comments and integrate changes
suggested/required by Members-- Seth + Omar 

*	Draft some language on timeframes and implementation paths in light
of the AoC - Susan + Lynn
<https://community.icann.org/images/icons/emoticons/check.gif>   AGREEMENT

*	Susan to add agreed language to to data accuracy recommendation

*	Respond to Staff's comments for Community's information - All

*	Strengthen compliance recommendations and add justification to
proposal - Peter + Emily + Bill 

*	Alice to organize a subteam call

-- 

Alice Jansen

Assistant, Organizational Reviews

6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5

B-1040 Brussels

Belgium

Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 <tel:%2B32%202%20234%2078%2064> 

Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 <tel:%2B32%204%2073%2031%2076%2056> 

Skype: alice_jansen_icann

 

 


_______________________________________________
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/20120415/3da83128/attachment.html 

From omar at kaminski.adv.br  Sun Apr 15 21:54:46 2012
From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:54:46 -0300
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Action items - updated
In-Reply-To: <4f8b11ac.45d4e00a.2aed.ffff8095SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
References: <CBAFD87B.19319%alice.jansen@icann.org>
	<CAD48TT9OoA0Ho+P2Rh=Pwh90ANEK9YJ39QzdHn69hKp-mmBDFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f8b11ac.45d4e00a.2aed.ffff8095SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <CAD48TT-8z=bWJ=Xqq6NcWCmT09rR1U9qQcyAaWOf-bbkKp6Vnw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Seth,

Anyway I'll do my best to help somehow. Please keep me posted.

Best wishes,

Omar

PS: sorry to have sent this to the general list insted of Seth and Kathy
only. My fault.



2012/4/15 Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss at lex-ip.com>

> Omar****
>
> ** **
>
> Please do not worry about the work.  I am sure we can complete it with any
> assistance you may be in a position to offer.   Family should always be a
> first priority.****
>
> ** **
>
> So far, no one has forwarded me a chapter for final review.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> Seth****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Omar Kaminski [mailto:omar at kaminski.adv.br]
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 14, 2012 2:34 PM
> *To:* seth.reiss at lex-ip.com; kathy at kathykleiman.com
> *Cc:* rt4-whois at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Action items - updated****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Kathy and Seth,
>
> How's our work? Again, and yet, I'm having extreme dificulties in tackling
> with my everyday jobs, moreover I'm having dificulties in following the
> group discussions closely. I'm trying to do my best and attend as many
> conferences I can but it's not enough.
>
> I'm not sure if the best path is to resign and quit the job with the
> group, because I understand we're more closely to the end that the middle
> of work, and having team members from other coutries besides US gives more
> legitimacy and a new process to cover the vacancy should be
> contraproducent.
>
> As far as I saw our term finished yesterday (13th), and I'll be busy and
> traveling at least until 18th. My dad is still sick, my mom is almost blind
> and so the life goes on and I need to priorize them right now.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Omar
>
>
> ****
>
> 2012/4/14 Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>****
> Dear Review Team Members,****
>
> Please find enclosed your action items list which reflects decisions
> reached during your last conference call.****
>
> This is also available at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+Items+-+Spring+2012
> ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Kind regards****
>
> ** **
>
> Alice****
> Action Items - Spring 2012****
>
> **?         **** **
>
> **?         **Added by Alice Jansen<https://community.icann.org/display/%7Ealice.jansen>,
> last edited by Alice Jansen<https://community.icann.org/display/%7Ealice.jansen> on
> Apr 12, 2012  (view change<https://community.icann.org/pages/diffpages.action?pageId=31173652&originalId=31176014>
> )****
>
> **?         **** **
>
>    - Revive call schedule (calls to take place on Wednesdays once a week;
>    first call to take place on Wed, 28 March) ? Alice ****
>
>
>    - Review and submit language of recs 5-9 (Data Accuracy) - Susan   ****
>
>
>    - *Susan to circulate findings (3/4 paragraphs), agreed
>       recommendations and add wordings (+ define the substantial/full failure
>       terms)* ****
>       - *Susan and James to add footnotes references*****
>
>
>    - Review comments submitted to the Team and Denise's recommendation
>    tracking document ****
>
>
>    - Propose alternative language for Proxy and Privacy
>    recommendations -  James + Susan + Peter + Seth *+ Lynn* ; * *  ****
>
>
>    - *Subteam to review comments submitted and to circulate a draft by 13
>       April*****
>
>
>    - Hold the pen on rec. 3 strategic priority by 28 March -- Emily ;   **
>    **
>
>
>    - *Emily to integrate comments received *****
>       - *Susan to put forward some language*****
>
>
>    - *Denise to circulate draft advisory 2010 and material (recording,
>    notes etc) of Cartagena discussion on this subject matter* ****
>
>
>    - Find text on accreditation-- Kathy ; +* *Hierarchy of enforcement -
>    James* *  ****
>
>
>    - *James to circulate language by 28 March (incentives><penalties)*****
>
>
>    - Work on language of rec. 17 Emily;    AGREEMENT REACHED****
>
>
>    -  *Kathy to circulate iterations - if substantive, back on action
>       items list*****
>
>
>    - Review language of recs. on IDNs -- Sarmad + Kathy + Wilfried +
>    Michael****
>
>
>    - *IDN subteam to hold a call with Steve Sheng (Staff to schedule it)
>       and attempt to share language by 28 April*****
>
>
>    - Review your chapters and send redline to Seth + Omar + Alice by 21
>    March--  *13 April*****
>
>
>    - Review body of text in light of comments and integrate changes
>    suggested/required by Members-- Seth + Omar ****
>
>
>    - Draft some language on timeframes and implementation paths in light
>    of the AoC - Susan + Lynn   AGREEMENT****
>
>
>    - *Susan to add agreed language to to data accuracy recommendation*****
>
>
>    - Respond to Staff's comments for Community's information - All****
>
>
>    - Strengthen compliance recommendations and add justification to
>    proposal - Peter + Emily + Bill ****
>
>
>    - *Alice to organize a subteam call*****
>
> -- ****
>
> *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****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120415/6af9fde1/attachment.html