[Rt4-whois] Input for today/tomorrow's call [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Susan Kawaguchi]

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