[Rt4-whois] Note Pod Content - 18 April call

Thu Apr 19 00:40:02 UTC 2012

Dear Review Team Members,

Please find enclosed the note pod content of your conference call held on 18 April.
Staff will draft a preliminary report for your consideration.
Thanks,

Kind regards

Alice
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Reply-To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
Subject: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from WHOIS-Review

WHOIS Policy Review Team - I8 April - 23:00 UTC

AGENDA

1. Roll call & apologies

2. Agenda & Preliminary report (11 April)

3. Data validation: should this topic be added to our findings/preamble

4. Review proposed language & action items penholders report

 *   Compliance

 *   Proxy/Privacy

 *   Data Accuracy

 *   Recommendation 3

 *   Deaccreditation

 *   IDNs

5. Discuss general revisions to chapters and final report timeline

6. A.O.B (scheduling issues)

PARTICIPANTS

Lutz Donnerhacke, Lynn Goodendorf, Kathy Kleiman, James Bladel, Peter Nettlefold, Omar Kaminski, Susan Kawaguchi, Seth Reiss

ICANN STAFF

Alice Jansen, Denise Michel

APOLOGIES

Sarmad Hussain, Emily Taylor, Wilfried Woeber, Michael Yakushev, Bill Smith, Olof Nordling

NOTES

1. Prel report adopted

2. Data validation -

(JB) this subject was discussed in London. Would have to rebuild amount of work ongoing in Community (PDP, RAA) need to be cautious

(LG) appropriate to consider having a couple of lines to encourage data validation techniques as a way to achieve accuracy goals.

(JB) as ongoing, think we had agreed to leave a roadmap to next RT.

(PN) Not sure where this would fit in Data accuracy. Would be useful to acknowledge that things going on in the Community.

(KK) state that numerous mechanisms but went for low-hanging fruit?

(JB) might confuse community. Be consistent, restate definitions.

(LG) How would validation/authentication techniques be used rather than getting involved in implementation details.

(JB) emphasize accuracy goal not mention the path taken to get there.

PENHOLDERS - (JB) - (PN)

Would should this additional piece go? Exec. summary? Body of text? Recs?

(KK) make sure it can be found in different parts of the report. Up to subteam to put proposal forward

3) Compliance recommendations (PN) Mostly prepared by (ET). Public discussion about compliance in Costa Rica + enquired about Compliance figures. Compliance clearly related to WHOIS landscape. Strategic priority also included in the compliance recommendations.  How much do we pull them apart to make them clear? Each issue to be given an identity.

(KK) Liaison with IETF?

(PN) still need to discuss points. Please send in your views.

Team should review Compliance recommendations and submit comments to subteam.

4) Strategic priority - Compliance subteam to take this on.

SK position: CEO or Board committee -

Team went back to Costa Rica discussion.

(JB) Board-level Committee tasked with implementing whatever comes out of this group. Starting-point ATRT. This group would overseen WHOIS.

(SK) Should be for all WHOIS issue not only compliance recommendations. If the Board issues the mandate, there would be more movement within ICANN Staff.

(PN) - Idea of CEO and Board Committee good situation - to keep issues disentangled, call for independent report to advise Board on benchmarking, best practivces etc. More of an organizational question.

(SK) volunteered to draft some language.

5) Proxy/Privacy Recommendations

(JB) Reference to 3.7.7.3 - important component not contained in paragraph. Wrongful use. Collision with something that is currently in the RAA.

(SK) this was not caught on in the comments

(JB) The way written in our report - it preserves liability.

(PN) Done to deal with uncertainty created by RAA. Comments in response to discussion paper brought our attention to this question of who is responsible. Discussion in Dakar responsibility with Registry Name Holder.

Go back to Dakar transcripts.

(KK) to send out a version on Thurs, 19 April to reflect that. discussion.

Subteam o work on the language of last paragraph.

(PN) comments on findings - dot points are repetitive. Positive and negative should be together followed by a conclusion. (PN) to submit comments in writing

Privacy discussion:.

(PN) Is there a right to privacy

(LG) In Europe, privacy is a human right. Word right has connotations which could mean different things and cause unecessary disagreement with recommendations. Would prefer if  could avoid using that word.

(JB) ICANN not governement - cannot support, establish, disminish right that people don't have under jurisdiction they live in. E.G. domain name transfer. Number of contexts where word right starts to confuse proces rather clarify it. Reference to Registrants' rights and responsibilities document published by ICANN. Need to find a way to establish expectations for privacy.

(LG) Data protection aspects of people who believe they have been harmed by fraudulent Domain names. Rights of people using the internet. In violent agreement James - just need to find wording to present the problem.

(PN) to draft on Tursday, 19 April for subteam comments to get ball moving.

5) Data Accuracy Recommendations

(SK) not created language per say but shortened things. Findings are for revision. On rec 7, initially recommended that add language on timeline, should we lose rec 7 as is under accuracy and add to recommendation 21?

(PN) thanks for work. Middle paragraph of findings bits where go directly to scope. In terms of readability, might be worth drawing points out.

Regulator term - not sure if better wording? Might want to focus on that.

(SK) in the report

(PN) discussed this with GAC. Something we might want to be mindful of.

(SK) Oversight?

(PN) which ICANN regulates and oversees?

(JB) alternatives: administer/manage/coordinate...

(PN) findings: heard in public sessions. make it clear that widely communicated to the RT. Rec 6 - language of unreachable WHOIS - update? Annual status on all goals.

Rec 7?

(SK) Rec 7 - WHOIS overall. If renumber recommendation - moving it to a different section. No pointing toward data accuracy or whois in general.

(KK) merge 6+7 into one rec?

(PN) getting rid of rec 7 and create an overarching 21 rec.

(SK) Separate rec about plan at the end. All related recs. at the end

to work on this and to send it to the group.

6) Deaccreditation

(JB) and (KK) to reiterate that.

7) IDNs

Meeting tomorrow with Steve Sheng and Francisco Arias.

Michael has circulated revisions to subteam and this has been emailed to Staff to see if that fixes issues.

8) Chapters & Timeline

(PN) No revision to chapters

(KK) Add agenda item to next call.

Do you think can get all language ready by next week? No objection. Emily to decide. Looks like might be going into May. Amendments to chapters and recs by next call.

9) A.O.B
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120418/e1548e53/attachment.html 