From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Mon Apr 30 02:27:16 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:27:16 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised In-Reply-To: <28EAF73D-B4FA-4BDB-A1CC-1586CFA65FA5@paypal.com> References: , <28EAF73D-B4FA-4BDB-A1CC-1586CFA65FA5@paypal.com> Message-ID: <962EE86C-0E6D-40F0-B590-58F2D867ED89@paypal.com> That should be number changes to address. On Apr 29, 2012, at 1:12 PM, "Smith, Bill" wrote: > Read it, agree. One suggested change and a comment for a change. > > 1) Request changing number in the IP address section to number. > 2) RFC for WHOIS is not plicy > > See attached for specifics. > > > On Apr 28, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: > > Dear all > > Thank you Kathy for your work on combining our discussions, findings and recommendations into a single document along with the Executive Summary. > > I have gone through it all now, and attach a marked up draft, which I hope does the following: > > 1. I have marked as accepted all the text which I believe has been agreed by the team on our previous calls - that is the wording of findings and recommendations on strategic priority, data accuracy, most of the wording on privacy proxy (apart from last para), the common interface, and the new ones at the end on progress reporting. I may have got this wrong, and hope that others will review carefully. > > 2. I have marked up new text: > > - there were some sections of the old exec summary which I thought we could reintroduce since they make important points on (1) consensus building and (2) consumer trust. > > - The text on strategic priority which is new, recalls our agreement on the last call. This is basically Susan's text. Having reviewed the whole recommendation, it makes sense (I think) to pull out some duplicate ideas (on incentives), and also to put the reporting bit at the end. > > - I added a few words into Kathy's new text introducing Outreach (rec 3). I like Kathy's text and recommend that it is accepted. > > - Whole new section on Compliance. As reported on our last call, we've had an outline in circulation for some time, but only had the opportunity to discuss in our small team yesterday. This is our proposal, which is lifted from the larger chapter that was circulated yesterday. > > - I added the WDRP text (which was quite a popular draft recommendation!) into data accuracy recommendations. I recall from our discussions in Costa Rica that we agreed it was a bit out of place as the second recommendation, and that it fitted better as a sub-section on accuracy. Having put in that recommendation, I saw that we had no text in the findings to anchor it. Taking Kathy's approach, I found the paragraph in our original draft report (Compliance chapter - findings), which described the problem we perceive. > > - The paragraph on data validation (drafted by James, Lynn and me) is now at the end of the findings on data accuracy, as agreed on our last call. > > Otherwise, I recommend Kathy's changes are accepted (I've left them marked up so all can see and comment). > > Lastly, Kathy - you asked about "de-accreditation", and my recollection is that we noted James' draft and helpful explanations on this, and agreed that we didn't need to go further or add new text into the recommendations. Again, if I've misunderstood, please shout. > > All: Would be grateful for your input on this as soon as possible. Even if it's a short e-mail saying "I read it; I agree" ;-) > > > > Kind regards > > Emily > > > > -- > > > [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] > > > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 > emily at emilytaylor.eu > > www.etlaw.co.uk > > Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Mon Apr 30 03:14:49 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:14:49 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance chapter - draft [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <90088312-F512-4B3B-8CBB-D4D8035B6652@paypal.com> References: <90088312-F512-4B3B-8CBB-D4D8035B6652@paypal.com> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352676848@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello all, First, thanks very much Emily for taking the lead on drafting this chapter, which I fully support. This is a critical part of our report, and goes right to the heart of our earliest discussions, where we identified the 'missing regulator' in the system (noting the sensitivity about that specific term) as a key issue for us to focus on. In conjunction with the strategic priority findings and recommendations, I think that this chapter covers the key concerns we have been grappling with in this area, at the same time as acknowledging and substantively responding to the comments we received from the community. I have noted a few minor typos, and suggested one or two very minor wording changes, all in revision mode, but have nothing else to add to the text. My one outstanding concern relates to the actual workflow systems and processes in place to support the compliance function. This is different to the staffing question, and the issues of structure and accountability, which we have already addressed. In short, it may be useful to explicitly say somewhere that the compliance team should have the tools it needs to do the job, particularly in light of the scaling issues associated with the new gTLD program. If others agree, we could supplement the existing recommendations with something along the lines of the below: * ICANN should provide all necessary resources to ensure that the compliance team has the processes and technological tools it needs to efficiently and pro-actively manage and scale its compliance activities. The review team notes that this will be particularly important in light of the new gTLD program, and all relevant compliance processes and tools should be reviewed and improved, and new tools developed where necessary, in advance of any new gTLDs becoming operational. I look forward to comments on this issue. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com] Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012 4:11 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: Nettlefold, Peter; Smith, Bill; Mikhail Yakushev; Subject: Re: Compliance chapter - draft I have read the updated draft and support it in its entirety. Well done Emily and members of the team. On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: Hi there As discussed on my call with Peter this morning, I attach a first draft of the new Chapter 4, complete with Findings and Recommendations. I'm copying to the entire list so that you all have the opportunity to comment as soon as possible. Please do read this. It's core to our report. I have no pride of authorship, please let me have your frank feedback. There are some tracked changes at the end but really the whole thing is pretty new, so just read it through. It's only 9 pages. Can I have your final edits please by the end of Monday. Kind regards Emily -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu> www.etlaw.co.uk> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120430/584bf83a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Compliance chapter (1).docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 45647 bytes Desc: Compliance chapter (1).docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/584bf83a/Compliancechapter1.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Mon Apr 30 06:42:10 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:42:10 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance chapter - draft [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352676848@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <90088312-F512-4B3B-8CBB-D4D8035B6652@paypal.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352676848@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Hi Peter Thank you for your comments on the compliance chapter. I fully support your proposed additional recommendation and look forward to feedback from others in the Review Team *today.* * * This would be a separate recommendation numbered sub-point 3 in the current text, is that correct? Kind regards Emily On 30 April 2012 04:14, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: > Hello all,**** > > ** ** > > First, thanks very much Emily for taking the lead on drafting this > chapter, which I fully support. This is a critical part of our report, and > goes right to the heart of our earliest discussions, where we identified > the ?missing regulator? in the system (noting the sensitivity about that > specific term) as a key issue for us to focus on.**** > > ** ** > > In conjunction with the strategic priority findings and recommendations, I > think that this chapter covers the key concerns we have been grappling with > in this area, at the same time as acknowledging and substantively > responding to the comments we received from the community.**** > > ** ** > > I have noted a few minor typos, and suggested one or two very minor > wording changes, all in revision mode, but have nothing else to add to the > text.**** > > ** ** > > My one outstanding concern relates to the actual workflow systems and > processes in place to support the compliance function. This is different to > the staffing question, and the issues of structure and accountability, > which we have already addressed. In short, it may be useful to explicitly > say somewhere that the compliance team should have the tools it needs to do > the job, particularly in light of the scaling issues associated with the > new gTLD program. If others agree, we could supplement the existing > recommendations with something along the lines of the below:**** > > ** ** > > **? **ICANN should provide all necessary resources to ensure that > the compliance team has the processes and technological tools it needs to > efficiently and pro-actively manage and scale its compliance activities. > The review team notes that this will be particularly important in light of > the new gTLD program, and all relevant compliance processes and tools > should be reviewed and improved, and new tools developed where necessary, > in advance of any new gTLDs becoming operational.**** > > ** ** > > I look forward to comments on this issue.**** > > ** ** > > Cheers,**** > > ** ** > > Peter**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com] > Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012 4:11 AM > To: Emily Taylor > Cc: Nettlefold, Peter; Smith, Bill; Mikhail Yakushev; > > Subject: Re: Compliance chapter - draft**** > > ** ** > > I have read the updated draft and support it in its entirety. Well done > Emily and members of the team.**** > > ** ** > > On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:**** > > ** ** > > Hi there**** > > ** ** > > As discussed on my call with Peter this morning, I attach a first draft of > the new Chapter 4, complete with Findings and Recommendations.**** > > ** ** > > I'm copying to the entire list so that you all have the opportunity to > comment as soon as possible. Please do read this. It's core to our > report. I have no pride of authorship, please let me have your frank > feedback. There are some tracked changes at the end but really the whole > thing is pretty new, so just read it through. It's only 9 pages.**** > > ** ** > > Can I have your final edits please by the end of Monday.**** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > ** ** > > Emily**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > --**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif]**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK**** > > t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 > emily at emilytaylor.eu**** > > ** ** > > www.etlaw.co.uk > >**** > > ** ** > > Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and > Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.**** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > 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. > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > -- * * 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/20120430/459d5177/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Mon Apr 30 06:45:57 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:45:57 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance chapter - draft [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: <90088312-F512-4B3B-8CBB-D4D8035B6652@paypal.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352676848@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352676C73@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hi Emily, Thanks for your comments. Yes, I had seen it as an additional numbered sub-part to the recommendation. Fyi, I'm just now reviewing the Executive Summary, and will circulate some comments shortly. Cheers, Peter From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Monday, 30 April 2012 4:42 PM To: Nettlefold, Peter Cc: ; Mikhail Yakushev; Smith, Bill Subject: Re: Compliance chapter - draft [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter Thank you for your comments on the compliance chapter. I fully support your proposed additional recommendation and look forward to feedback from others in the Review Team today. This would be a separate recommendation numbered sub-point 3 in the current text, is that correct? Kind regards Emily On 30 April 2012 04:14, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hello all, First, thanks very much Emily for taking the lead on drafting this chapter, which I fully support. This is a critical part of our report, and goes right to the heart of our earliest discussions, where we identified the 'missing regulator' in the system (noting the sensitivity about that specific term) as a key issue for us to focus on. In conjunction with the strategic priority findings and recommendations, I think that this chapter covers the key concerns we have been grappling with in this area, at the same time as acknowledging and substantively responding to the comments we received from the community. I have noted a few minor typos, and suggested one or two very minor wording changes, all in revision mode, but have nothing else to add to the text. My one outstanding concern relates to the actual workflow systems and processes in place to support the compliance function. This is different to the staffing question, and the issues of structure and accountability, which we have already addressed. In short, it may be useful to explicitly say somewhere that the compliance team should have the tools it needs to do the job, particularly in light of the scaling issues associated with the new gTLD program. If others agree, we could supplement the existing recommendations with something along the lines of the below: * ICANN should provide all necessary resources to ensure that the compliance team has the processes and technological tools it needs to efficiently and pro-actively manage and scale its compliance activities. The review team notes that this will be particularly important in light of the new gTLD program, and all relevant compliance processes and tools should be reviewed and improved, and new tools developed where necessary, in advance of any new gTLDs becoming operational. I look forward to comments on this issue. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com] Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012 4:11 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: Nettlefold, Peter; Smith, Bill; Mikhail Yakushev; > Subject: Re: Compliance chapter - draft I have read the updated draft and support it in its entirety. Well done Emily and members of the team. On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: Hi there As discussed on my call with Peter this morning, I attach a first draft of the new Chapter 4, complete with Findings and Recommendations. I'm copying to the entire list so that you all have the opportunity to comment as soon as possible. Please do read this. It's core to our report. I have no pride of authorship, please let me have your frank feedback. There are some tracked changes at the end but really the whole thing is pretty new, so just read it through. It's only 9 pages. Can I have your final edits please by the end of Monday. Kind regards Emily -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu> www.etlaw.co.uk> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120430/674df020/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Apr 30 07:45:03 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:45:03 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Attached - Executive summary In-Reply-To: <28EAF73D-B4FA-4BDB-A1CC-1586CFA65FA5@paypal.com> Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, I have inserted the data validation text into the executive summary following Emily's request. Attached you will find the most recent version of the executive summary - also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann On 4/29/12 7:10 PM, "Smith, Bill" wrote: >Read it, agree. One suggested change and a comment for a change. > >1) Request changing number in the IP address section to number. >2) RFC for WHOIS is not plicy > >See attached for specifics. > > >On Apr 28, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: > >Dear all > >Thank you Kathy for your work on combining our discussions, findings and >recommendations into a single document along with the Executive Summary. > >I have gone through it all now, and attach a marked up draft, which I >hope does the following: > >1. I have marked as accepted all the text which I believe has been >agreed by the team on our previous calls - that is the wording of >findings and recommendations on strategic priority, data accuracy, most >of the wording on privacy proxy (apart from last para), the common >interface, and the new ones at the end on progress reporting. I may have >got this wrong, and hope that others will review carefully. > >2. I have marked up new text: > >- there were some sections of the old exec summary which I thought we >could reintroduce since they make important points on (1) consensus >building and (2) consumer trust. > >- The text on strategic priority which is new, recalls our agreement on >the last call. This is basically Susan's text. Having reviewed the >whole recommendation, it makes sense (I think) to pull out some duplicate >ideas (on incentives), and also to put the reporting bit at the end. > >- I added a few words into Kathy's new text introducing Outreach (rec 3). > I like Kathy's text and recommend that it is accepted. > >- Whole new section on Compliance. As reported on our last call, we've >had an outline in circulation for some time, but only had the opportunity >to discuss in our small team yesterday. This is our proposal, which is >lifted from the larger chapter that was circulated yesterday. > >- I added the WDRP text (which was quite a popular draft recommendation!) >into data accuracy recommendations. I recall from our discussions in >Costa Rica that we agreed it was a bit out of place as the second >recommendation, and that it fitted better as a sub-section on accuracy. >Having put in that recommendation, I saw that we had no text in the >findings to anchor it. Taking Kathy's approach, I found the paragraph in >our original draft report (Compliance chapter - findings), which >described the problem we perceive. > >- The paragraph on data validation (drafted by James, Lynn and me) is now >at the end of the findings on data accuracy, as agreed on our last call. > >Otherwise, I recommend Kathy's changes are accepted (I've left them >marked up so all can see and comment). > >Lastly, Kathy - you asked about "de-accreditation", and my recollection >is that we noted James' draft and helpful explanations on this, and >agreed that we didn't need to go further or add new text into the >recommendations. Again, if I've misunderstood, please shout. > >All: Would be grateful for your input on this as soon as possible. Even >if it's a short e-mail saying "I read it; I agree" ;-) > > > >Kind regards > >Emily > > > >-- > > > [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] > > > >76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK >t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 >emily at emilytaylor.eu > >www.etlaw.co.uk > >Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and >Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. > >ed.docx>_______________________________________________ >Rt4-whois mailing list >Rt4-whois at icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Executive summaryv4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 61634 bytes Desc: Executive summaryv4.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/1a7cd2e6/Executivesummaryv4.docx From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Mon Apr 30 07:50:36 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:50:36 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352676D44@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello all, Thanks to Emily, Kathy and all the others who have contributed to this revised draft. I have made several comments and edits in revision mode. These are primarily to: * Comment on Emily's and Kathy's discussion about whether to reinstate text from the first draft - in general, I agree to reinstating the relevant text, but can also live with some minor softening in places * Seek some clarification on the outreach recommendation (#3). In short, I strongly support the sentiment, and make some comments about clarifying/sharpening the recommendation. I have not offered alternate text for this one, as I'm not sure I fully understand the nuances, so I'll look for others to comment. * Add the additional sub-part to the compliance recommendation(#4) that I circulated earlier, and which to date only Emily has commented on and supported * Edit the privacy/proxy text, to remove the reference to 'legitimate' in the findings, and more substantively to offer a draft alternative to the contentious last paragraph in the recommendation (#10) * Add an 'awareness raising' component to the data access recommendation (#11) * (Re)offer alternative wording for the status reports recommendation (#15) to clarify the timing and expectations I hope this helps. Cheers, Peter PS. I have just seen Alice's email with a newer version of the Executive Summary, which includes the data validation text, so I apologise for making extra work by having made all my comments in the earlier version! From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012 9:59 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised Dear all Thank you Kathy for your work on combining our discussions, findings and recommendations into a single document along with the Executive Summary. I have gone through it all now, and attach a marked up draft, which I hope does the following: 1. I have marked as accepted all the text which I believe has been agreed by the team on our previous calls - that is the wording of findings and recommendations on strategic priority, data accuracy, most of the wording on privacy proxy (apart from last para), the common interface, and the new ones at the end on progress reporting. I may have got this wrong, and hope that others will review carefully. 2. I have marked up new text: - there were some sections of the old exec summary which I thought we could reintroduce since they make important points on (1) consensus building and (2) consumer trust. - The text on strategic priority which is new, recalls our agreement on the last call. This is basically Susan's text. Having reviewed the whole recommendation, it makes sense (I think) to pull out some duplicate ideas (on incentives), and also to put the reporting bit at the end. - I added a few words into Kathy's new text introducing Outreach (rec 3). I like Kathy's text and recommend that it is accepted. - Whole new section on Compliance. As reported on our last call, we've had an outline in circulation for some time, but only had the opportunity to discuss in our small team yesterday. This is our proposal, which is lifted from the larger chapter that was circulated yesterday. - I added the WDRP text (which was quite a popular draft recommendation!) into data accuracy recommendations. I recall from our discussions in Costa Rica that we agreed it was a bit out of place as the second recommendation, and that it fitted better as a sub-section on accuracy. Having put in that recommendation, I saw that we had no text in the findings to anchor it. Taking Kathy's approach, I found the paragraph in our original draft report (Compliance chapter - findings), which described the problem we perceive. - The paragraph on data validation (drafted by James, Lynn and me) is now at the end of the findings on data accuracy, as agreed on our last call. Otherwise, I recommend Kathy's changes are accepted (I've left them marked up so all can see and comment). Lastly, Kathy - you asked about "de-accreditation", and my recollection is that we noted James' draft and helpful explanations on this, and agreed that we didn't need to go further or add new text into the recommendations. Again, if I've misunderstood, please shout. All: Would be grateful for your input on this as soon as possible. Even if it's a short e-mail saying "I read it; I agree" ;-) Kind regards Emily -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120430/8c60ce27/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Executive summary et kk pn ed.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 68743 bytes Desc: Executive summary et kk pn ed.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/8c60ce27/Executivesummaryetkkpned.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Mon Apr 30 07:58:11 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:58:11 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352676D44@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352676D44@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Would you mind combining the documents that you and Peter just sent around, and re-circulate Peter's comments + the updated attachment to the team. Thanks Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nettlefold, Peter Date: 30 April 2012 08:50 Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] To: Emily Taylor , "rt4-whois at icann.org" < rt4-whois at icann.org> Cc: Alice Jansen Hello all,**** ** ** Thanks to Emily, Kathy and all the others who have contributed to this revised draft.**** ** ** I have made several comments and edits in revision mode. These are primarily to:**** ** ** **? **Comment on Emily?s and Kathy?s discussion about whether to reinstate text from the first draft ? in general, I agree to reinstating the relevant text, but can also live with some minor softening in places**** **? **Seek some clarification on the outreach recommendation (#3). In short, I strongly support the sentiment, and make some comments about clarifying/sharpening the recommendation. I have not offered alternate text for this one, as I?m not sure I fully understand the nuances, so I?ll look for others to comment.**** **? **Add the additional sub-part to the compliance recommendation(#4) that I circulated earlier, and which to date only Emily has commented on and supported**** **? **Edit the privacy/proxy text, to remove the reference to ?legitimate? in the findings, and more substantively to offer a draft alternative to the contentious last paragraph in the recommendation (#10)*** * **? **Add an ?awareness raising? component to the data access recommendation (#11)**** **? **(Re)offer alternative wording for the status reports recommendation (#15) to clarify the timing and expectations**** ** ** I hope this helps.**** ** ** Cheers,**** ** ** Peter**** ** ** PS. I have just seen Alice?s email with a newer version of the Executive Summary, which includes the data validation text, so I apologise for making extra work by having made all my comments in the earlier version!**** ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Taylor *Sent:* Saturday, 28 April 2012 9:59 PM *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised**** ** ** Dear all**** Thank you Kathy for your work on combining our discussions, findings and recommendations into a single document along with the Executive Summary.**** ** ** I have gone through it all now, and attach a marked up draft, which I hope does the following:**** ** ** 1. I have marked as accepted all the text which I believe has been agreed by the team on our previous calls - that is the wording of findings and recommendations on strategic priority, data accuracy, most of the wording on privacy proxy (apart from last para), the common interface, and the new ones at the end on progress reporting. I may have got this wrong, and hope that others will review carefully.**** ** ** 2. I have marked up new text:**** ** ** - there were some sections of the old exec summary which I thought we could reintroduce since they make important points on (1) consensus building and (2) consumer trust.**** ** ** - The text on strategic priority which is new, recalls our agreement on the last call. This is basically Susan's text. Having reviewed the whole recommendation, it makes sense (I think) to pull out some duplicate ideas (on incentives), and also to put the reporting bit at the end.**** ** ** - I added a few words into Kathy's new text introducing Outreach (rec 3). I like Kathy's text and recommend that it is accepted.**** ** ** - Whole new section on Compliance. As reported on our last call, we've had an outline in circulation for some time, but only had the opportunity to discuss in our small team yesterday. This is our proposal, which is lifted from the larger chapter that was circulated yesterday.**** ** ** - I added the WDRP text (which was quite a popular draft recommendation!) into data accuracy recommendations. I recall from our discussions in Costa Rica that we agreed it was a bit out of place as the second recommendation, and that it fitted better as a sub-section on accuracy. Having put in that recommendation, I saw that we had no text in the findings to anchor it. Taking Kathy's approach, I found the paragraph in our original draft report (Compliance chapter - findings), which described the problem we perceive.**** ** ** - The paragraph on data validation (drafted by James, Lynn and me) is now at the end of the findings on data accuracy, as agreed on our last call.**** ** ** Otherwise, I recommend Kathy's changes are accepted (I've left them marked up so all can see and comment).**** ** ** Lastly, Kathy - you asked about "de-accreditation", and my recollection is that we noted James' draft and helpful explanations on this, and agreed that we didn't need to go further or add new text into the recommendations. Again, if I've misunderstood, please shout.**** ** ** All: Would be grateful for your input on this as soon as possible. Even if it's a short e-mail saying "I read it; I agree" ;-)**** ** ** ** ** ** ** Kind regards**** Emily**** ** ** **** ** ** -- **** * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.**** ** ** * ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * 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. * ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * -- * * 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/20120430/47b2b9ff/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Executive summary et kk pn ed.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 68743 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/47b2b9ff/Executivesummaryetkkpned.docx From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Apr 30 08:03:25 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:03:25 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Emily, Thanks for your message. I am working on the document now and will circulate to the Team shortly. I believe Peter's version does not include Bill's input which I will make sure to insert too. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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 From: Emily Taylor > To: Alice Jansen >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Fwd: [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Would you mind combining the documents that you and Peter just sent around, and re-circulate Peter's comments + the updated attachment to the team. Thanks Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nettlefold, Peter > Date: 30 April 2012 08:50 Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] To: Emily Taylor >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Cc: Alice Jansen > Hello all, Thanks to Emily, Kathy and all the others who have contributed to this revised draft. I have made several comments and edits in revision mode. These are primarily to: ? Comment on Emily?s and Kathy?s discussion about whether to reinstate text from the first draft ? in general, I agree to reinstating the relevant text, but can also live with some minor softening in places ? Seek some clarification on the outreach recommendation (#3). In short, I strongly support the sentiment, and make some comments about clarifying/sharpening the recommendation. I have not offered alternate text for this one, as I?m not sure I fully understand the nuances, so I?ll look for others to comment. ? Add the additional sub-part to the compliance recommendation(#4) that I circulated earlier, and which to date only Emily has commented on and supported ? Edit the privacy/proxy text, to remove the reference to ?legitimate? in the findings, and more substantively to offer a draft alternative to the contentious last paragraph in the recommendation (#10) ? Add an ?awareness raising? component to the data access recommendation (#11) ? (Re)offer alternative wording for the status reports recommendation (#15) to clarify the timing and expectations I hope this helps. Cheers, Peter PS. I have just seen Alice?s email with a newer version of the Executive Summary, which includes the data validation text, so I apologise for making extra work by having made all my comments in the earlier version! From:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012 9:59 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised Dear all Thank you Kathy for your work on combining our discussions, findings and recommendations into a single document along with the Executive Summary. I have gone through it all now, and attach a marked up draft, which I hope does the following: 1. I have marked as accepted all the text which I believe has been agreed by the team on our previous calls - that is the wording of findings and recommendations on strategic priority, data accuracy, most of the wording on privacy proxy (apart from last para), the common interface, and the new ones at the end on progress reporting. I may have got this wrong, and hope that others will review carefully. 2. I have marked up new text: - there were some sections of the old exec summary which I thought we could reintroduce since they make important points on (1) consensus building and (2) consumer trust. - The text on strategic priority which is new, recalls our agreement on the last call. This is basically Susan's text. Having reviewed the whole recommendation, it makes sense (I think) to pull out some duplicate ideas (on incentives), and also to put the reporting bit at the end. - I added a few words into Kathy's new text introducing Outreach (rec 3). I like Kathy's text and recommend that it is accepted. - Whole new section on Compliance. As reported on our last call, we've had an outline in circulation for some time, but only had the opportunity to discuss in our small team yesterday. This is our proposal, which is lifted from the larger chapter that was circulated yesterday. - I added the WDRP text (which was quite a popular draft recommendation!) into data accuracy recommendations. I recall from our discussions in Costa Rica that we agreed it was a bit out of place as the second recommendation, and that it fitted better as a sub-section on accuracy. Having put in that recommendation, I saw that we had no text in the findings to anchor it. Taking Kathy's approach, I found the paragraph in our original draft report (Compliance chapter - findings), which described the problem we perceive. - The paragraph on data validation (drafted by James, Lynn and me) is now at the end of the findings on data accuracy, as agreed on our last call. Otherwise, I recommend Kathy's changes are accepted (I've left them marked up so all can see and comment). Lastly, Kathy - you asked about "de-accreditation", and my recollection is that we noted James' draft and helpful explanations on this, and agreed that we didn't need to go further or add new text into the recommendations. Again, if I've misunderstood, please shout. All: Would be grateful for your input on this as soon as possible. Even if it's a short e-mail saying "I read it; I agree" ;-) Kind regards Emily -- 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/5dfb0d70/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Apr 30 08:25:31 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:25:31 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the latest version of the executive summary (also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report) which includes: * Emily, Peter, Kathy, Bill's comments and edits; * Data validation text. Please make sure to use this version should you have edits to insert or comments to make. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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/20120430/a4dd7050/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Executive summary V6.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 71497 bytes Desc: Executive summary V6.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/a4dd7050/ExecutivesummaryV6.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Mon Apr 30 08:43:24 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:43:24 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Alice Please would you also make sure that the compliance chapter findings and recommendations reflect the latest amendments, and that Seth has a copy of the text of the compliance chapter for editing and integration into the final report - it replaces the current chapter on compliance. Seth, if you have any questions, let me know. Kind regards Emily On Monday, April 30, 2012, Alice Jansen wrote: > Dear Review Team Members, > > Please find attached the latest version of the executive summary (also > available at: > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report) which > includes: > > - Emily, Peter, Kathy, Bill's comments and edits; > - Data validation text. > > Please make sure to use this version should you have edits to insert or > comments to make. > Thanks, > > Kind regards > > Alice > -- > *Alice Jansen* > Organizational Reviews Manager > *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 > > > -- * * 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/20120430/6a6d5125/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Apr 30 13:00:39 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:00:39 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Rotation of calls - 06:00 UTC on May 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Consistent with the rotation system, the time put forward for your next conference call is 06:00 UTC. Should no objection be raised by Monday - end of your business day, we will proceed with this proposal. Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Alice Jansen > To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Rotation of calls Dear Review Team Members, The Review Team Chair and Vice-Chair have decided to reinstate the rotation system used in 2011. Please kindly note that per Emily and Kathy's request, the first conference call will be scheduled late evening UTC. The subsequent call, on the other hand, will be scheduled early morning UTC. Your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 25 April. The time put forward for this call is 22:00 UTC. Should no objection be raised by Monday - end of your business day, we will proceed with this proposal. Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Kathy Kleiman > To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Rotation of Calls - resume? Hi All, Tx you for an excellent call this evening. Alice will circulate notes tomorrow, but quick summary is that the subteams continue their work on findings and recommendations, with the guidance of the Team (and we discussed each of the major sections this evening). We'll all report back to the full Team before the call next Wednesday. Alice tried to come on the call at the end to raise an additional question, and I did not hear her (sorry!) Here's her question: Do we want to resume call rotations? It is the way we established in the past to be fair. With our weekly calls now in full swing, should we start it again? Tx for your thoughts, Kathy -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/9209b4f5/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Apr 30 13:16:51 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:16:51 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance chapter - latest version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, The compliance has been updated following Emily's request. You will find attached as well as on the private wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report Please be kindly reminded to submit any edits/comments you may have by today, end of your business day. Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Emily Taylor > To: Alice Jansen > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version Thanks Alice Please would you also make sure that the compliance chapter findings and recommendations reflect the latest amendments, and that Seth has a copy of the text of the compliance chapter for editing and integration into the final report - it replaces the current chapter on compliance. Seth, if you have any questions, let me know. Kind regards Emily -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/28124719/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Compliance v4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 49040 bytes Desc: Compliance v4.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/28124719/Compliancev4.docx From emily at emilytaylor.eu Mon Apr 30 13:20:23 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:20:23 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance chapter - latest version In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry Alice My fault - I thin k that the extra recommendation 1 and 2 (page 10) right at the end is legacy text, now amended and replicated above. E On 30 April 2012 14:16, Alice Jansen wrote: > Dear Review Team Members, > > The compliance has been updated following Emily's request. > You will find attached as well as on the private wiki at: > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report > > *Please be kindly reminded to submit any edits/comments you may have by > today, end of your business day.* > * > * > Thanks, > > Kind regards > > Alice > From: Emily Taylor > To: Alice Jansen > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version > > Thanks Alice > > Please would you also make sure that the compliance chapter findings and > recommendations reflect the latest amendments, and that Seth has a copy of > the text of the compliance chapter for editing and integration into the > final report - it replaces the current chapter on compliance. > > Seth, if you have any questions, let me know. > > Kind regards > > Emily > > -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/07ce8409/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Apr 30 13:32:50 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:32:50 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] USE THIS VERSION: Compliance chapter - latest version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: oK ? thanks, Emily :-). Review Team Members, please use this version for your comments and edits. Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Emily Taylor > To: Alice Jansen > Subject: Fwd: Compliance chapter - latest version This this does it. E ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emily Taylor > Date: 30 April 2012 14:20 Subject: Re: Compliance chapter - latest version To: Alice Jansen > Cc: Seth M Reiss >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" >, "m.yakushev at mail.ru" > Sorry Alice My fault - I thin k that the extra recommendation 1 and 2 (page 10) right at the end is legacy text, now amended and replicated above. E On 30 April 2012 14:16, Alice Jansen > wrote: Dear Review Team Members, The compliance has been updated following Emily's request. You will find attached as well as on the private wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report Please be kindly reminded to submit any edits/comments you may have by today, end of your business day. Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Emily Taylor > To: Alice Jansen > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version Thanks Alice Please would you also make sure that the compliance chapter findings and recommendations reflect the latest amendments, and that Seth has a copy of the text of the compliance chapter for editing and integration into the final report - it replaces the current chapter on compliance. Seth, if you have any questions, let me know. Kind regards Emily -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/925b563c/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Compliance v6.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 48213 bytes Desc: Compliance v6.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/925b563c/Compliancev6.docx From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Apr 30 14:39:09 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:39:09 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352676D44@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352676D44@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <4F9EA40D.6060700@kathykleiman.com> Hi Peter, Emily and All, I think things are looking good! Best, Kathy p.s. quick note to Alice that I would be happy to work with her to ensure that all the embedded comments I put into the Executive Summary (for us) are removed in the final version. : > > Hello all, > > Thanks to Emily, Kathy and all the others who have contributed to this > revised draft. > > I have made several comments and edits in revision mode. These are > primarily to: > > ?Comment on Emily's and Kathy's discussion about whether to reinstate > text from the first draft -- in general, I agree to reinstating the > relevant text, but can also live with some minor softening in places > > ?Seek some clarification on the outreach recommendation (#3). In > short, I strongly support the sentiment, and make some comments about > clarifying/sharpening the recommendation. I have not offered alternate > text for this one, as I'm not sure I fully understand the nuances, so > I'll look for others to comment. > > ?Add the additional sub-part to the compliance recommendation(#4) that > I circulated earlier, and which to date only Emily has commented on > and supported > > ?Edit the privacy/proxy text, to remove the reference to 'legitimate' > in the findings, and more substantively to offer a draft alternative > to the contentious last paragraph in the recommendation (#10) > > ?Add an 'awareness raising' component to the data access > recommendation (#11) > > ?(Re)offer alternative wording for the status reports recommendation > (#15) to clarify the timing and expectations > > I hope this helps. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > PS. I have just seen Alice's email with a newer version of the > Executive Summary, which includes the data validation text, so I > apologise for making extra work by having made all my comments in the > earlier version! > > *From:*rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Taylor > *Sent:* Saturday, 28 April 2012 9:59 PM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations > - revised > > Dear all > > > Thank you Kathy for your work on combining our discussions, findings > and recommendations into a single document along with the Executive > Summary. > > I have gone through it all now, and attach a marked up draft, which I > hope does the following: > > 1. I have marked as accepted all the text which I believe has been > agreed by the team on our previous calls - that is the wording of > findings and recommendations on strategic priority, data accuracy, > most of the wording on privacy proxy (apart from last para), the > common interface, and the new ones at the end on progress reporting. > I may have got this wrong, and hope that others will review carefully. > > 2. I have marked up new text: > > - there were some sections of the old exec summary which I thought we > could reintroduce since they make important points on (1) consensus > building and (2) consumer trust. > > - The text on strategic priority which is new, recalls our agreement > on the last call. This is basically Susan's text. Having reviewed > the whole recommendation, it makes sense (I think) to pull out some > duplicate ideas (on incentives), and also to put the reporting bit at > the end. > > - I added a few words into Kathy's new text introducing Outreach (rec > 3). I like Kathy's text and recommend that it is accepted. > > - Whole new section on Compliance. As reported on our last call, > we've had an outline in circulation for some time, but only had the > opportunity to discuss in our small team yesterday. This is our > proposal, which is lifted from the larger chapter that was circulated > yesterday. > > - I added the WDRP text (which was quite a popular draft > recommendation!) into data accuracy recommendations. I recall from > our discussions in Costa Rica that we agreed it was a bit out of place > as the second recommendation, and that it fitted better as a > sub-section on accuracy. Having put in that recommendation, I saw > that we had no text in the findings to anchor it. Taking Kathy's > approach, I found the paragraph in our original draft report > (Compliance chapter - findings), which described the problem we perceive. > > - The paragraph on data validation (drafted by James, Lynn and me) is > now at the end of the findings on data accuracy, as agreed on our last > call. > > Otherwise, I recommend Kathy's changes are accepted (I've left them > marked up so all can see and comment). > > Lastly, Kathy - you asked about "de-accreditation", and my > recollection is that we noted James' draft and helpful explanations on > this, and agreed that we didn't need to go further or add new text > into the recommendations. Again, if I've misunderstood, please shout. > > All: Would be grateful for your input on this as soon as possible. > Even if it's a short e-mail saying "I read it; I agree" ;-) > > Kind regards > > > Emily > > > -- > > > __ > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 . m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 > emily at emilytaylor.eu > > *www.etlaw.co.uk * > > Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England > and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. > > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and > destroy all > copies of the original message. > > This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. > MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, > undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway > products please visit www.axway.com. > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/3c32637f/attachment.html From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Mon Apr 30 17:47:02 2012 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:47:02 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007c01cd26f9$40aacce0$c20066a0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> No questions, but I did want to advise you of the status of my review and edit. Due to workload from my practice, I was not able to begin my review until today. I will need this week to get through it. Please let me know if that will work for you and the team. Your patience is appreciated. Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:43 PM To: Alice Jansen Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version Thanks Alice Please would you also make sure that the compliance chapter findings and recommendations reflect the latest amendments, and that Seth has a copy of the text of the compliance chapter for editing and integration into the final report - it replaces the current chapter on compliance. Seth, if you have any questions, let me know. Kind regards Emily On Monday, April 30, 2012, Alice Jansen wrote: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the latest version of the executive summary (also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report) which includes: * Emily, Peter, Kathy, Bill's comments and edits; * Data validation text. Please make sure to use this version should you have edits to insert or comments to make. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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 -- 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/20120430/1b0ee342/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Mon Apr 30 18:02:59 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:02:59 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version In-Reply-To: <4f9ed01a.e138440a.1a08.ffffcd63SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4f9ed01a.e138440a.1a08.ffffcd63SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi Seth Eeek. Not really. How about you limit the work, and just take in any public comments on the main body of the report (I think there are only a handful)? E On 30 April 2012 18:47, Seth M Reiss wrote: > No questions, but I did want to advise you of the status of my review and > edit. **** > > ** ** > > Due to workload from my practice, I was not able to begin my review until > today. I will need this week to get through it. Please let me know if > that will work for you and the team.**** > > ** ** > > Your patience is appreciated.**** > > ** ** > > Seth **** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Emily Taylor > *Sent:* Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:43 PM > *To:* Alice Jansen > *Cc:* rt4-whois at icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version**** > > ** ** > > Thanks Alice**** > > ** ** > > Please would you also make sure that the compliance chapter findings and > recommendations reflect the latest amendments, and that Seth has a copy of > the text of the compliance chapter for editing and integration into the > final report - it replaces the current chapter on compliance.**** > > ** ** > > Seth, if you have any questions, let me know.**** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > ** ** > > Emily > > On Monday, April 30, 2012, Alice Jansen wrote:**** > > Dear Review Team Members,**** > > ** ** > > Please find attached the latest version of the executive summary (also > available at: > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report) which > includes:**** > > - Emily, Peter, Kathy, Bill's comments and edits;**** > - Data validation text.**** > > Please make sure to use this version should you have edits to insert or > comments to make.**** > > Thanks,**** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > ** ** > > Alice**** > > -- **** > > *Alice Jansen***** > > Organizational Reviews Manager**** > > *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**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > > -- > > > **** > > * > * > > 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.**** > > ** ** > -- * * 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/20120430/63573978/attachment.html From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Mon Apr 30 18:05:23 2012 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:05:23 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version In-Reply-To: References: <4f9ed01a.e138440a.1a08.ffffcd63SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <009701cd26fb$d0de2a80$729a7f80$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Emily, I am not sure I understand. Can you clarify? From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 8:03 AM To: Seth M Reiss Cc: Alice Jansen; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version Hi Seth Eeek. Not really. How about you limit the work, and just take in any public comments on the main body of the report (I think there are only a handful)? E On 30 April 2012 18:47, Seth M Reiss wrote: No questions, but I did want to advise you of the status of my review and edit. Due to workload from my practice, I was not able to begin my review until today. I will need this week to get through it. Please let me know if that will work for you and the team. Your patience is appreciated. Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:43 PM To: Alice Jansen Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version Thanks Alice Please would you also make sure that the compliance chapter findings and recommendations reflect the latest amendments, and that Seth has a copy of the text of the compliance chapter for editing and integration into the final report - it replaces the current chapter on compliance. Seth, if you have any questions, let me know. Kind regards Emily On Monday, April 30, 2012, Alice Jansen wrote: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the latest version of the executive summary (also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report) which includes: * Emily, Peter, Kathy, Bill's comments and edits; * Data validation text. Please make sure to use this version should you have edits to insert or comments to make. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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 -- 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. -- 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2169 / Virus Database: 2411/4967 - Release Date: 04/29/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/a834a408/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Apr 30 20:51:57 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:51:57 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recirculating: Agenda - call with ICANN Staff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Recirculating the agenda of your call with ICANN Staff for your convenience. Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Alice Jansen > To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Agenda - call with ICANN Staff Dear Review Team Members, As you know, your call with ICANN Staff is scheduled for Monday, 30 April at 22:00 UTC (time converter at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Policy+RT%3E%3CICANN+STAFF&iso=20120430T22&ah=2) Please find enclosed the draft agenda (also available at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Call+with+ICANN+Staff+-+30+April+2012) Thanks, Kind regards Alice 1. Roll-call & apologies 2. Adopt agenda 3. Discuss the RAA sections that pertain to the accuracy of WHOIS information and the registrar's and registrant's responsibilities i.e.: * 3.3.1 * 3.7.2 * 3.7.7.2 * 3.7.8 4. Discuss Compliance Team & decision-making * Does the "Head of the Contractual Compliance Team" make final decisions about compliance actions in all instances or do these need to be cleared with, or vetted by, someone else (e.g. the General Counsel)? * If so, is there a threshold and/or criteria for taking responsibility for a compliance decision outside of the compliance team? * Are these processes and reporting lines clear and documented? * What are the responsibilities and incentives of the ultimate decision makers (particularly if they are outside of the compliance team) ? e.g. are their incentives and responsibilities clear and/or exclusively compliance focused? If not, why not? How are any conflicts of incentives/interests resolved? 5. A.O.B -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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/20120430/3f88dc4d/attachment.html From susank at fb.com Mon Apr 30 20:55:30 2012 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Compliance chapter - draft [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Emily, I have reviewed the Compliance chapter and have no revisions. You did a great job of pulling it together and it reads well. I do agree with Peter's point and adding his language into the current recommendation. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: Emily Taylor > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:42:10 +0100 To: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Cc: ">" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Compliance chapter - draft [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter Thank you for your comments on the compliance chapter. I fully support your proposed additional recommendation and look forward to feedback from others in the Review Team today. This would be a separate recommendation numbered sub-point 3 in the current text, is that correct? Kind regards Emily On 30 April 2012 04:14, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hello all, First, thanks very much Emily for taking the lead on drafting this chapter, which I fully support. This is a critical part of our report, and goes right to the heart of our earliest discussions, where we identified the ?missing regulator? in the system (noting the sensitivity about that specific term) as a key issue for us to focus on. In conjunction with the strategic priority findings and recommendations, I think that this chapter covers the key concerns we have been grappling with in this area, at the same time as acknowledging and substantively responding to the comments we received from the community. I have noted a few minor typos, and suggested one or two very minor wording changes, all in revision mode, but have nothing else to add to the text. My one outstanding concern relates to the actual workflow systems and processes in place to support the compliance function. This is different to the staffing question, and the issues of structure and accountability, which we have already addressed. In short, it may be useful to explicitly say somewhere that the compliance team should have the tools it needs to do the job, particularly in light of the scaling issues associated with the new gTLD program. If others agree, we could supplement the existing recommendations with something along the lines of the below: ? ICANN should provide all necessary resources to ensure that the compliance team has the processes and technological tools it needs to efficiently and pro-actively manage and scale its compliance activities. The review team notes that this will be particularly important in light of the new gTLD program, and all relevant compliance processes and tools should be reviewed and improved, and new tools developed where necessary, in advance of any new gTLDs becoming operational. I look forward to comments on this issue. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com] Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012 4:11 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: Nettlefold, Peter; Smith, Bill; Mikhail Yakushev; > Subject: Re: Compliance chapter - draft I have read the updated draft and support it in its entirety. Well done Emily and members of the team. On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: Hi there As discussed on my call with Peter this morning, I attach a first draft of the new Chapter 4, complete with Findings and Recommendations. I'm copying to the entire list so that you all have the opportunity to comment as soon as possible. Please do read this. It's core to our report. I have no pride of authorship, please let me have your frank feedback. There are some tracked changes at the end but really the whole thing is pretty new, so just read it through. It's only 9 pages. Can I have your final edits please by the end of Monday. Kind regards Emily -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu> www.etlaw.co.uk> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120430/4f21d4d8/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Tue May 1 02:10:06 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:10:06 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Executive version - latest version [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33526CABDB@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello again all, I have just re-reviewed this version, and made a few additional comments. These are: 1. Minor changes to the last dot point in recommendation 1, to cross reference and align it with the 'compliance' recommendations (these follow my edits on the strategic priority section yesterday, which didn't make it into this version). This is because of a potential overlap in the new strategic priority and compliance recommendations, and I would appreciate views on whether I have understood the issue correctly and/or got the text right. I have inserted a comment with further explanation in the text. 2. A minor addition to recommendation 9, and a proposal that this recommendation be moved to number 5. This follows the call with staff earlier today, and reflection that while our findings are very clear that accuracy should become an organisation priority, we don't say this in our recommendations, and instead dive straight into the detail of targets etc without a clear overarching statement. I have tried to broaden recommendation 9 to achieve this, and have included additional explanation in the text. I also see that the IDN recommendations are still pending, and I would be happy to assist the sub-team with those if that would help. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Monday, 30 April 2012 6:26 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive version - latest version Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the latest version of the executive summary (also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report) which includes: * Emily, Peter, Kathy, Bill's comments and edits; * Data validation text. Please make sure to use this version should you have edits to insert or comments to make. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120501/00ebc486/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Executive summary V6 pn.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 71857 bytes Desc: Executive summary V6 pn.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120501/00ebc486/ExecutivesummaryV6pn.docx From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue May 1 09:52:30 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 02:52:30 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, As you know, your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 2 May at 06:00 UTC (time converter:http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT+-+2+May+-+06%3A00+UTC&iso=20120502T06&ah=1&am=30) Please find enclosed the agenda, also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+30+-+2+May+2012 Thanks, Kind regards Alice ----------- Tomorrow's call will be our last as a review team, and our task is to sign off the final report. If you are unable to make the call, please indicate your agreement or any comments on the executive summary and compliance chapter if you have not already done so.* 1. Executive summary - Sign off general text - Discuss outstanding proposals for amendments and reach conclusions - IDN recommendations - final text for approval. 2. Compliance chapter - Sign off general text 3. Full report (other chapters) - Report from Seth on edits (minimalist approach) - Sign off by RT 4. Steps to publication - Clean up tracked changes and combine into single document (Alice) - Final check for sense (Alice, Emily, Kathy) - Review Appendices and add new material as referenced (table showing public comments, additional Compliance documents referenced in the new chapter), and agree publication date for appendices (proposal - 11 May) 5. AOB and vote of thanks for ICANN staff support. ------------- * To date, received from Bill, Kathy, Peter and Susan. -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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/20120501/fdab6a65/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue May 1 12:31:10 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 05:31:10 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary report for your approval - 25 April In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the preliminary report of your call held on 25 April. Kindly note that this will be discussed during your upcoming conference call (2 May at 06:00 UTC). In the meantime, please feel free to email editing suggestions/requirements. Thanks, Very best regards Alice -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120501/69b291d1/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Prel Report - 25 April.doc Type: application/msword Size: 45568 bytes Desc: Prel Report - 25 April.doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120501/69b291d1/PrelReport-25April.doc From emily at emilytaylor.eu Tue May 1 14:08:50 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 15:08:50 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] IDN findings and recommendations Message-ID: Dear all On behalf of the small group working on IDN recommendations, here are the amended recommendations, and findings (which are taken direct from the draft report findings). I believe that this wording now has consensus among the small group. The meaning is close to the original recommendations published for public comment, but the text is shorter. I hope we can sign these off as soon as possible, so please let me have any comments before our call tomorrow. Those unable to join - please indicate your views. If I don't hear back I'll assume that everyone is happy. Kind regards Emily *Findings:* * * Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment, policy and implementation have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is Internationalised Domain Names (IDN), which have been available for registration at the second level for over a decade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this time, WHOIS policies were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to support non-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that Internationalisation is essential for the Internet?s development as a global resource. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy. * * *Recommendations* *18. *ICANN Community should task a working group within 6 months of publication to determine the relevant internationalized domain name registration data requirements and evaluate the available solutions, especially those being successfully implemented by ccTLDs, at least for the adoption of IDN gTLDs, as already stipulated by the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook.The working group should aim for consistency of approach across the gTLD and ? on a voluntary basis ? the ccTLD space, and report within a year of being tasked.**** ** ** *19.* The final data model, including (any) requirements for the translation or transliteration of the registration data, should be incorporated in the relevant Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of adoption of the working group?s recommendations by the ICANN Board. If these recommendations are not finalized in time for the next revision of such agreements, explicit placeholders for this purpose should be put in place in the agreements for the new gTLD program at this time, and in the existing agreements when they come up for renewal.**** * * *20*. In addition, metrics should be developed to maintain and measure the accuracy of the internationalized registration data and corresponding data in ASCII, with clearly defined compliance methods and targets, as per the details in Recommendations 5-9 in this document.**** * * 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/20120501/3692947b/attachment.html From susank at fb.com Tue May 1 22:57:33 2012 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 22:57:33 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary Message-ID: Thank you all for your hard work on the executive summary. I have made a few comments but for the most part I am in agreement with the current draft. Talk to you tonight. 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/20120501/28b0e545/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Executive summary V6 Susan's comments 5112.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 68273 bytes Desc: Executive summary V6 Susan's comments 5112.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120501/28b0e545/ExecutivesummaryV6Susanscomments5112.docx From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue May 1 23:53:26 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 19:53:26 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FA07776.3090203@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the meeting in a few hours (it's at 2am my time). Thanks to everyone for all the discussion and editing! I support the Executive Summary and IDN Comments. I wanted to share a particular support for the new proxy/privacy point that Peter added. providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the privacy/proxy environment I'm happy to work with Alice on removing all the comments I inserted... and regards to all! Kathy : > Thank you all for your hard work on the executive summary. I have > made a few comments but for the most part I am in agreement with the > current draft. > > Talk to you tonight. > > 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 -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120501/a3c26196/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Wed May 2 00:50:38 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:50:38 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <4FA07776.3090203@kathykleiman.com> References: <4FA07776.3090203@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33526CB472@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hi all, In advance of tonight's call, I just wanted to note that there seem to be two versions on v6 out there - one I sent yesterday with 'v6 pn' in the title, and more recent version sent by Susan with 'v6 Susan's comments'. I'm not commenting on the content as such, but just noting the version issue. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012 9:53 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary Hi All, I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the meeting in a few hours (it's at 2am my time). Thanks to everyone for all the discussion and editing! I support the Executive Summary and IDN Comments. I wanted to share a particular support for the new proxy/privacy point that Peter added. providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the privacy/proxy environment I'm happy to work with Alice on removing all the comments I inserted... and regards to all! Kathy : Thank you all for your hard work on the executive summary. I have made a few comments but for the most part I am in agreement with the current draft. Talk to you tonight. 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120502/5b759fc2/attachment.html From susank at fb.com Wed May 2 01:06:35 2012 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 01:06:35 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33526CB472@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Hi Peter, Your comments were in the version that I reviewed. Although, I am sure it was not the version in which you modified recommendation 9 and moved it to recommendation 5. Hopefully, we will be able to merge the comments into one document. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:50:38 +1000 To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi all, In advance of tonight?s call, I just wanted to note that there seem to be two versions on v6 out there ? one I sent yesterday with ?v6 pn? in the title, and more recent version sent by Susan with ?v6 Susan?s comments?. I?m not commenting on the content as such, but just noting the version issue. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012 9:53 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary Hi All, I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the meeting in a few hours (it's at 2am my time). Thanks to everyone for all the discussion and editing! I support the Executive Summary and IDN Comments. I wanted to share a particular support for the new proxy/privacy point that Peter added. providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the privacy/proxy environment I'm happy to work with Alice on removing all the comments I inserted... and regards to all! Kathy : Thank you all for your hard work on the executive summary. I have made a few comments but for the most part I am in agreement with the current draft. Talk to you tonight. 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120502/e53671da/attachment.html From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Wed May 2 01:37:47 2012 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 15:37:47 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33526CB472@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <4FA07776.3090203@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33526CB472@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <005e01cd2804$2e8aa1f0$8b9fe5d0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> My comments on the current draft of Recommendation 10: Data Access- Privacy and Proxy Services Findings: Para 2: I agree with Peter to delete the word "legitimate". Recommendations: top of next page beginning with "ICANN could, for example, use a mix of": I would delete the phrase "to encourage proxy/privacy service providers to become accredited". Leaving the phrase in suggests that ICANN could tolerate a community of non-accredited proxy/privacy providers and I feel this is the wrong message to send. Same page bullet two: I am still confused who is provide the full details and if the details are of the service provider or the beneficiary user. Last paragraph last bullet. I like Peter's comment "Clarifying the issue of rights/responsibilities/liabilities should be an essential part of the proxy/privacy discussion, with the goal being clear and comprehensive guidance for the community." (I've tried to improve it a little). Can we place this statement above as a recommendation separate from the bullet points, perhaps as the second, third or fourth paragraph under Recommendations. I sense that strengthening this statement could address Susan's concerns as well. Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:51 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi all, In advance of tonight's call, I just wanted to note that there seem to be two versions on v6 out there - one I sent yesterday with 'v6 pn' in the title, and more recent version sent by Susan with 'v6 Susan's comments'. I'm not commenting on the content as such, but just noting the version issue. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012 9:53 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary Hi All, I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the meeting in a few hours (it's at 2am my time). Thanks to everyone for all the discussion and editing! I support the Executive Summary and IDN Comments. I wanted to share a particular support for the new proxy/privacy point that Peter added. providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the privacy/proxy environment I'm happy to work with Alice on removing all the comments I inserted... and regards to all! Kathy : Thank you all for your hard work on the executive summary. I have made a few comments but for the most part I am in agreement with the current draft. Talk to you tonight. 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 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/20120501/4b66b567/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Wed May 2 01:38:00 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 11:38:00 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33526CB472@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33526CB566@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Thanks Susan. I think the issue was that I made two rounds of comments, and so the last round which you mention (which had the minor changes to rec 1 and the changes to rec 9) seem to have been missed. Either way, I expect we can get it sorted on the call, if not before. As you were also on the staff call and part of the discussion on the scope of our accuracy recommendations, did you have any thoughts on my proposed changes to those? Cheers, Peter From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank at fb.com] Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012 11:07 AM To: Nettlefold, Peter; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter, Your comments were in the version that I reviewed. Although, I am sure it was not the version in which you modified recommendation 9 and moved it to recommendation 5. Hopefully, we will be able to merge the comments into one document. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:50:38 +1000 To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi all, In advance of tonight's call, I just wanted to note that there seem to be two versions on v6 out there - one I sent yesterday with 'v6 pn' in the title, and more recent version sent by Susan with 'v6 Susan's comments'. I'm not commenting on the content as such, but just noting the version issue. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012 9:53 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary Hi All, I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the meeting in a few hours (it's at 2am my time). Thanks to everyone for all the discussion and editing! I support the Executive Summary and IDN Comments. I wanted to share a particular support for the new proxy/privacy point that Peter added. providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the privacy/proxy environment I'm happy to work with Alice on removing all the comments I inserted... and regards to all! Kathy : Thank you all for your hard work on the executive summary. I have made a few comments but for the most part I am in agreement with the current draft. Talk to you tonight. 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120502/b74077b0/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed May 2 03:11:16 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 23:11:16 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <005e01cd2804$2e8aa1f0$8b9fe5d0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> References: <4FA07776.3090203@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33526CB472@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <005e01cd2804$2e8aa1f0$8b9fe5d0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Message-ID: <4FA0A5D4.10105@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, Before I head off, I want to share what you would already know: 1) I like the word legitimate. I think it reflects what we have all said, and agreed to on a recent call, that there privacy rights and legitimate privacy needs. I am sorry to see it go because I thought it kept the balance when we deleted specific privacy rights bullet point. 2) But much more strongly, I oppose the deletion of the phrase "to encourage proxy/privacy service providers to become accredited" from the following sentence: ==> "ICANN could, for example, use a mix of incentives and graduated sanctions to encourage proxy/privacy service providers to become accredited, and to ensure that registrars do not knowingly accept registrations from unaccredited providers." I think Peter drafted the original statement (I hope I credited it properly) and it captures well the consensus of the group -- what we all agreed upon together. Delete it, and it becomes a mandate requirement from the Review Team for accreditation, and we simply don't have consensus on that (and I would have to write a minority statement). (As I have shared -- after 10 years of work in the GNSO WHOIS arena -- We have done more to progress discussion on this issue than any group in 10 years. Make the standards voluntary at the start, and the ICANN Community has an incentive to make the voluntary standards balanced and fair, in hopes of the best practices becoming permanent. Make them mandatory upfront, and groups know they are competing for something that can be forced down other sides' throats and won't compromise. There's a history here... ) 3) I think it's too late for a new recommendation. It's a good bullet point, but I think it will delay our closure process to make it a full recommendation. It fits very well where it is... 4) Regarding the edits to the Full Report, will we all get a chance to see them and review them? I think it would be good.... Best and thanks, Kathy : > > My comments on the current draft of Recommendation 10: Data Access- > Privacy and Proxy Services > > Findings: Para 2: I agree with Peter to delete the word "legitimate". > > Recommendations: top of next page beginning with "ICANN could, for > example, use a mix of": I would delete the phrase "to encourage > proxy/privacy service providers to become accredited". Leaving the > phrase in suggests that ICANN could tolerate a community of > non-accredited proxy/privacy providers and I feel this is the wrong > message to send. > > Same page bullet two: I am still confused who is provide the full > details and if the details are of the service provider or the > beneficiary user. > > Last paragraph last bullet. I like Peter's comment "Clarifying the > issue of rights/responsibilities/liabilities should be an essential > part of the proxy/privacy discussion, with the goal being clear and > comprehensive guidance for the community." (I've tried to improve it a > little). Can we place this statement above as a recommendation > separate from the bullet points, perhaps as the second, third or > fourth paragraph under Recommendations. I sense that strengthening > this statement could address Susan's concerns as well. > > Seth > > *From:*rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Nettlefold, Peter > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:51 PM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > > Hi all, > > In advance of tonight's call, I just wanted to note that there seem to > be two versions on v6 out there -- one I sent yesterday with 'v6 pn' > in the title, and more recent version sent by Susan with 'v6 Susan's > comments'. > > I'm not commenting on the content as such, but just noting the version > issue. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > *From:*rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > > [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent:* Wednesday, 2 May 2012 9:53 AM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary > > Hi All, > I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the meeting in a few > hours (it's at 2am my time). Thanks to everyone for all the discussion > and editing! I support the Executive Summary and IDN Comments. > > I wanted to share a particular support for the new proxy/privacy point > that Peter added. > > providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and > responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be > managed in the privacy/proxy environment > > I'm happy to work with Alice on removing all the comments I > inserted... and regards to all! > Kathy > > : > > Thank you all for your hard work on the executive summary. I have > made a few comments but for the most part I am in agreement with the > current draft. > > Talk to you tonight. > > 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 > > > > -- > > > > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and > destroy all > copies of the original message. > > This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. > MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, > undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway > products please visit www.axway.com . > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120501/e54d665e/attachment.html From sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk Wed May 2 04:07:14 2012 From: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk (Sarmad Hussain) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:07:14 +0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] IRD protocol development at IETF Message-ID: <4fa0b2f8.431f440a.42fb.2050@mx.google.com> Dear All, A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area, with the following draft charter (see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/evaluation/weirds-charter.txt), and is provided for informational purposes only. Kindly note that current draft proposes way forward using RESTful framework for both names and numbers and also the timelines are Aug. 2013 for the completion of drafts. Regards, Sarmad Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (weirds) ---------------------------------------------------------- Status: Proposed Working Group Last updated: 2012-04-24 Chairs: TBD Applications Area Directors: Barry Leiba Pete Resnick Mailing List: Address: weirds at ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/ Description of Working Group: Internet registries for both number resources and names have historically maintained a lookup service to permit public access to some portion of the registry database. Most registries offer the service via WHOIS (RFC 3912), with additional services being offered via world wide web pages, bulk downloads, and other services, such as RPSL (RFC 2622). WHOIS has never been internationalized. In the absence of formal specification, ad hoc solutions to signal internationalized registration data have been adopted and deployed. Providing a standards-based solution that scales well could minimize further proliferation of ad hoc solutions. WHOIS also has no data model: replies are basically just free-form text. This means that processing of WHOIS output amounts to "screen scraping", with specialized handlers for every service. While many of the domain name registries share a basic common output format, the addition of data elements changes the output and causes problems for parsers of the data. The WHOIS protocol does not offer any differential service; it cannot differentiate among clients to offer different subsets of information or to allow different access rates to it. Various attempts to solve the limitations of WHOIS have met with mixed success. The most recent of these was IRIS (RFC 3891). IRIS has not been a successful replacement for WHOIS. The primary technical reason for this appears to be the complexity of IRIS, the fact that it builds upon many available technologies that in the aggregate form a complex system. There may also exist non-technical reasons, but they lie in areas upon which the IETF does not pass judgement. In recent years, ARIN and RIPE NCC have fielded production RESTful web services to serve WHOIS data, and each has met with success. It is widely believed that this simpler re-use of Web technologies familiar to modern web developers has enabled this success. The purpose of this working group is to broaden the use of RESTful web services by achieving simple and common URI patterns and responses amenable to all number resource and domain name registries. This Working Group shall determine the general needs of such a service, and standardize a single data framework. That framework shall be used to encapsulate objects that could form part of an answer. The framework shall be for data to be delivered via a RESTful data service using HTTP (optionally using TLS), and may use standard features of HTTP to support differential service levels to different classes of user. The data shall have one mandatory format, though the working group may consider other optional formats. The overall effort will be broadly aligned with a subset of the Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements (RFC 3707), but with the explicit additional goals of producing a simple, easy-to-implement protocol, supporting internationalized registration data and, specifically for name registries, capturing the needs of internationalized domain names in the data model. As the number registries have more experience with these services and have found common ground, with their dissimilarities resulting in more complete working group input documents, the goals of the working group are to produce standards-track specifications for both number and name registries using the fashion and pattern of the number registry input documents, draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-query and draft-newton-et-al-weirds-rir-json-response, as an initial basis. Work to specify the query for domain name registration data will be based on draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd. The Working Group shall determine the general requirements of such a service, using draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements as an input document, and standardize a single data framework. The working group will likely not seek publication of this draft. Should the Working Group reach a point where it determines that the problem of producing a grand unified specification for both numbers and names appears to be intractable, it will be permitted to divide the problem into separate tasks and amend its milestones accordingly. Milestones: Nov 2012 Draft specifying the common infrastructure document to the IESG for approval as a Proposed Standard. Feb 2013 Draft specifying the RESTful URL query format for RIRs to the IESG for approval as a Proposed Standard. Mar 2013 Draft specifying the format for responses to RIR queries to the IESG for approval as a Proposed Standard. Jul 2013 Draft specifying the RESTful URL query format for domain name registration data to the IESG for approval as a Proposed Standard. Aug 2013 Draft(s) specifying the format(s) for responses to domain name registration data queries to the IESG for approval as a Proposed Standard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120502/e6fff2fe/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed May 2 05:28:00 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 22:28:00 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call today @ 06:00 UTC Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Your next conference call is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 2 May 2012** 06:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT+-+2+May+-+06%3A00+UTC&iso=20120502T06&ah=1&am=30 PASSWORD: 27318 followed by # Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+30+-+2+May+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 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 Organizational Reviews Manager 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/20120501/6a08c174/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed May 2 05:40:57 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 22:40:57 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] ATTACHED: Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33526CB566@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Hi Peter, Hi Susan, I have inserted Peter's amendments (rec 1 & rec 9) into Susan's text. Please find attached a V8. This will be projected in the adobe room. Thanks, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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 From: , Peter > To: Susan Kawaguchi >, "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Thanks Susan. I think the issue was that I made two rounds of comments, and so the last round which you mention (which had the minor changes to rec 1 and the changes to rec 9) seem to have been missed. Either way, I expect we can get it sorted on the call, if not before. As you were also on the staff call and part of the discussion on the scope of our accuracy recommendations, did you have any thoughts on my proposed changes to those? Cheers, Peter From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank at fb.com] Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012 11:07 AM To: Nettlefold, Peter; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter, Your comments were in the version that I reviewed. Although, I am sure it was not the version in which you modified recommendation 9 and moved it to recommendation 5. Hopefully, we will be able to merge the comments into one document. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: "Nettlefold, Peter" > Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:50:38 +1000 To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi all, In advance of tonight?s call, I just wanted to note that there seem to be two versions on v6 out there ? one I sent yesterday with ?v6 pn? in the title, and more recent version sent by Susan with ?v6 Susan?s comments?. I?m not commenting on the content as such, but just noting the version issue. Cheers, Peter From:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012 9:53 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary Hi All, I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the meeting in a few hours (it's at 2am my time). Thanks to everyone for all the discussion and editing! I support the Executive Summary and IDN Comments. I wanted to share a particular support for the new proxy/privacy point that Peter added. providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the privacy/proxy environment I'm happy to work with Alice on removing all the comments I inserted... and regards to all! Kathy : Thank you all for your hard work on the executive summary. I have made a few comments but for the most part I am in agreement with the current draft. Talk to you tonight. 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120501/598f1601/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Executive summary V8.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 72934 bytes Desc: Executive summary V8.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120501/598f1601/ExecutivesummaryV8.docx From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Wed May 2 05:46:12 2012 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 19:46:12 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ad01cd2826$e24a97a0$a6dfc6e0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Chapter edits (minimalist approach employed). Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:53 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Importance: High Dear Review Team Members, As you know, your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 2 May at 06:00 UTC (time converter:http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT+-+2+ May+-+06%3A00+UTC &iso=20120502T06&ah=1&am=30) Please find enclosed the agenda, also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+30+-+2+May+2012 Thanks, Kind regards Alice ----------- Tomorrow's call will be our last as a review team, and our task is to sign off the final report. If you are unable to make the call, please indicate your agreement or any comments on the executive summary and compliance chapter if you have not already done so.* 1. Executive summary - Sign off general text - Discuss outstanding proposals for amendments and reach conclusions - IDN recommendations - final text for approval. 2. Compliance chapter - Sign off general text 3. Full report (other chapters) - Report from Seth on edits (minimalist approach) - Sign off by RT 4. Steps to publication - Clean up tracked changes and combine into single document (Alice) - Final check for sense (Alice, Emily, Kathy) - Review Appendices and add new material as referenced (table showing public comments, additional Compliance documents referenced in the new chapter), and agree publication date for appendices (proposal - 11 May) 5. AOB and vote of thanks for ICANN staff support. ------------- * To date, received from Bill, Kathy, Peter and Susan. -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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/20120501/a95c8c35/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Publish - WHOIS Policy RT - Draft report - 5Dec2011(smr rev 5-1-2012).doc Type: application/msword Size: 522240 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120501/a95c8c35/Publish-WHOISPolicyRT-Draftreport-5Dec2011smrrev5-1-2012.doc From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed May 2 06:00:15 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 23:00:15 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adobe room Message-ID: Please join the Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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/20120501/709707ee/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed May 2 15:21:26 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 08:21:26 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Note Pod Content - 2 May In-Reply-To: <25922863.25928.1335943724402.JavaMail.breezesvc@pacna7app08> Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, Please find enclosed the note pod content of your conference call held on 2 May. Staff will draft a preliminary report for your consideration. Thanks, Kind regards Alice WHOIS REVIEW TEAM CONFERENCE CALL 2 MAY - 06:00 UTC ----------- WHOIS REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Sarmad Hussain, James Bladel, Peter Nettlefold, Susan Kawaguchi, Seth Reiss, Emily Taylor, Michael Yakushev ICANN STAFF Olof Nordling, Alice Jansen, Denise Michel APOLOGIES Omar Kaminski, Kathy Kleiman ------------------------------------ AGENDA Tomorrow's call will be our last as a review team, and our task is to sign off the final report. If you are unable to make the call, please indicate your agreement or any comments on the executive summary and compliance chapter if you have not already done so.* 1. Executive summary - Sign off general text - Discuss outstanding proposals for amendments and reach conclusions - IDN recommendations - final text for approval. 2. Compliance chapter - Sign off general text 3. Full report (other chapters) - Report from Seth on edits (minimalist approach) - Sign off by RT 4. Steps to publication - Clean up tracked changes and combine into single document (Alice) - Final check for sense (Alice, Emily, Kathy) - Review Appendices and add new material as referenced (table showing public comments, additional Compliance documents referenced in the new chapter), and agree publication date for appendices (proposal - 11 May) 5. AOB and vote of thanks for ICANN staff support. ------------- * To date, received from Bill, Kathy, Peter and Susan. --------------------------------------------- NOTES 1. Executive Summary (ET) walks Team throught streams of edits. Susan and Peter to pinpoint most contentious issues Peter: legitimate James: non-malicious? Not causing harm. Catch non legalistic sentiment that legitimate brings. Susan: valid? Emily: endorsement Seth: many - out ; interest comma which many view as legitimate ADOPTED last paragraph James: context instead of environment environment adopted Seth: shouldn't discussed anything that is voluntary Language ok 2. IDNs Sarmad provided the Team with an overview of their activities and how they came to findings and recommendations Peter: Staff's recommendation is to explore work of IETF Agree on recommendations. Sarmad to send language to be adopted Susan: translation issue raised by Staff Executive summary Alice to reincorporate recommendation and to move it (page 10). put it as new recommendation 5 - move numbering down and change wording by broadening language out. ICANN should ensure that the requirements for accurate WHOIS data are widely and pro-actively communicated, including to current and prospective Registrants, and should use all means available to progress WHOIS accuracy including any internationalized WHOIS data as an organizational objective. As part of this effort, ICANN should ensure that its Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document is pro-actively and prominently circulated to all new and renewing registrants. Rec 8, 9 duplicates - accidentaly deleted ICANN should ensure... Reinstore original language in sections C & D. adopt the executive summary with changes discussed 3. Compliance chapter ADOPTED and thanks to Emily 4. Summary of comments inserted comments on chapters (mostly Steve Crocker's). 5.New Exec summary, new compliance, new findings and recs. proposal to sign-off. Draft report to be tidied up. Accept al comments and delete comment by the end of today - UTC. Alice to publish draft report within 24 hours. Get document out as soon as possible for recommendations. Work on appendices in the following week. 6. A.O.B Preliminary report adopted. 7. Thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120502/3966f693/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed May 2 17:25:04 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 18:25:04 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary - clean and checked Message-ID: Hi all Alice, as agreed this morning, has gone through and produced a clean version of the Executive Summary. I have now reviewed this for sense, and attach a mark up showing the following: 1. correction of a few minor typos 2. Page 1: our work has taken 18 months, so I put that in instead of "year-long" 3. Page 5: recommendation 1 I changed "take" to "taking" in the last bullet point for sense. 4. Page 11: on the second bullet point (recommendation 10) I added that the contact details are "for the privacy/proxy service provider". This takes on a comment/suggestion made by Seth a few days ago in notes on the draft to say that the sense of this bullet point was not clear. 5. Page 11: I think we should put in a footnote to say that "thin" whois will be explained in the glossary (and check that it is!) 6. Page 13 (findings for IDNs): I have included Sarmad's proposed language described on this morning's call. That's all - it reads well, and I think we should be proud of it. There are more nit picky points that I wanted to make about certain recommendations, but have held back. We're done. If you would like to make your own comments, please do so as soon as possible today. Alice - please can you take in these tracked changes and now combine the Executive summary into the final document for publication. Alice - the final document should also include the new chapter on compliance (cleaned up - let me know if you'd like me to review this once you've taken in the edits), and replacement of Findings and Recommendations chapters with the new text from the Executive Summary. Kind regards Emily -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120502/e774158b/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Executive summary V10 ET.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 50613 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120502/e774158b/ExecutivesummaryV10ET.docx From susank at fb.com Wed May 2 19:25:46 2012 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 19:25:46 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <00ad01cd2826$e24a97a0$a6dfc6e0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Message-ID: Hello All, I have quickly reviewed the chapter edits and insertion of Steve Crocker's comments. The only comments I have relate to page 26 ? Data accuracy ? In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data accuracy, which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of the University of Chicago (NORC) (the ?NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study 2009/10?). The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records were fully accurate [SMR1] and over 20% were completely inaccurate. The[Sk2] low level of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust in the WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and therefore in ICANN itself. The organisation?s priority in relation to WHOIS should be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over time. It should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, publish performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and registrants to improve data accuracy. ________________________________ [SMR1]Crocker asks for a definition here. [Sk2]In the corresponding recommendation we changed the terms to those defined in the NORC study. Do we want to use that vocabulary here along with the definitions from the NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. No Failure Met all three criteria fully ? deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of all details during interview Full failure ? Failed on all criteria ? undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview In the corresponding recommendation we changed the terms to those defined in the NORC study. Do we want to use that vocabulary here along with the definitions from the NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. No Failure Met all three criteria fully ? deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of all details during interview Full failure ? Failed on all criteria ? undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview I have suggested a revision below in yellow. Data accuracy ? In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data accuracy, which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of the University of Chicago (NORC) (the ?NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study 2009/10?). The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records met the study's criteria for No Failure and over 20% were categorized as Full Failure. The[low level of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust in the WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and therefore in ICANN itself. The organisation?s priority in relation to WHOIS should be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over time. It should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, publish performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and registrants to improve data accuracy. I am open to changing it to something similar to what I have suggested or leaving it as it since the community knew, for the most part, what we were talking about. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: Seth M Reiss > Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 19:46:12 -1000 To: 'Alice Jansen' >, > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Chapter edits (minimalist approach employed). Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:53 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Importance: High Dear Review Team Members, As you know, your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 2 May at 06:00 UTC (time converter:http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT+-+2+May+-+06%3A00+UTC&iso=20120502T06&ah=1&am=30) Please find enclosed the agenda, also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+30+-+2+May+2012 Thanks, Kind regards Alice ----------- Tomorrow's call will be our last as a review team, and our task is to sign off the final report. If you are unable to make the call, please indicate your agreement or any comments on the executive summary and compliance chapter if you have not already done so.* 1. Executive summary - Sign off general text - Discuss outstanding proposals for amendments and reach conclusions - IDN recommendations - final text for approval. 2. Compliance chapter - Sign off general text 3. Full report (other chapters) - Report from Seth on edits (minimalist approach) - Sign off by RT 4. Steps to publication - Clean up tracked changes and combine into single document (Alice) - Final check for sense (Alice, Emily, Kathy) - Review Appendices and add new material as referenced (table showing public comments, additional Compliance documents referenced in the new chapter), and agree publication date for appendices (proposal - 11 May) 5. AOB and vote of thanks for ICANN staff support. ------------- * To date, received from Bill, Kathy, Peter and Susan. -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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/20120502/8e070eed/attachment.html From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Wed May 2 20:39:15 2012 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:39:15 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01cd2826$e24a97a0$a6dfc6e0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Message-ID: <000601cd28a3$a489d890$ed9d89b0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> The proposed change sounds very sensible to me. Thanks Susan. Seth From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank at fb.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:26 AM To: Seth M Reiss; 'Alice Jansen'; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Hello All, I have quickly reviewed the chapter edits and insertion of Steve Crocker's comments. The only comments I have relate to page 26 Data accuracy - In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data accuracy, which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of the University of Chicago (NORC) (the "NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study 2009/10"). The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records were fully accurate [SMR1] <> [SMR1]and over 20% were completely inaccurate. The[Sk2] <> [Sk2] low level of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust in the WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and therefore in ICANN itself. The organisation's priority in relation to WHOIS should be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over time. It should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, publish performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and registrants to improve data accuracy. In the corresponding recommendation we changed the terms to those defined in the NORC study. Do we want to use that vocabulary here along with the definitions from the NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. No Failure Met all three criteria fully - deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of all details during interview Full failure - Failed on all criteria - undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview I have suggested a revision below in yellow. Data accuracy - In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data accuracy, which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of the University of Chicago (NORC) (the "NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study 2009/10"). The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records met the study's criteria for No Failure and over 20% were categorized as Full Failure. The[low level of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust in the WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and therefore in ICANN itself. The organisation's priority in relation to WHOIS should be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over time. It should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, publish performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and registrants to improve data accuracy. I am open to changing it to something similar to what I have suggested or leaving it as it since the community knew, for the most part, what we were talking about. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: Seth M Reiss Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 19:46:12 -1000 To: 'Alice Jansen' , Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Chapter edits (minimalist approach employed). Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:53 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Importance: High Dear Review Team Members, As you know, your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 2 May at 06:00 UTC (time converter:http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT+-+2+ May+-+06%3A00+UTC &iso=20120502T06&ah=1&am=30) Please find enclosed the agenda, also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+30+-+2+May+2012 Thanks, Kind regards Alice ----------- Tomorrow's call will be our last as a review team, and our task is to sign off the final report. If you are unable to make the call, please indicate your agreement or any comments on the executive summary and compliance chapter if you have not already done so.* 1. Executive summary - Sign off general text - Discuss outstanding proposals for amendments and reach conclusions - IDN recommendations - final text for approval. 2. Compliance chapter - Sign off general text 3. Full report (other chapters) - Report from Seth on edits (minimalist approach) - Sign off by RT 4. Steps to publication - Clean up tracked changes and combine into single document (Alice) - Final check for sense (Alice, Emily, Kathy) - Review Appendices and add new material as referenced (table showing public comments, additional Compliance documents referenced in the new chapter), and agree publication date for appendices (proposal - 11 May) 5. AOB and vote of thanks for ICANN staff support. ------------- * To date, received from Bill, Kathy, Peter and Susan. -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2169 / Virus Database: 2411/4973 - Release Date: 05/02/12 _____ [SMR1] <> Crocker asks for a definition here. [Sk2] <> In the corresponding recommendation we changed the terms to those defined in the NORC study. Do we want to use that vocabulary here along with the definitions from the NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. No Failure Met all three criteria fully - deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of all details during interview Full failure - Failed on all criteria - undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120502/efc87d18/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Wed May 2 23:14:11 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 09:14:11 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01cd2826$e24a97a0$a6dfc6e0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33527094E5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hi Susan, From my quick reading, it seems to make sense to align the text with the wording we adopted for the recommendations, particularly as doing would address a specific criticism from the community, and so I would support your proposed amendment. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 5:26 AM To: Seth M Reiss; 'Alice Jansen'; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Hello All, I have quickly reviewed the chapter edits and insertion of Steve Crocker's comments. The only comments I have relate to page 26 Data accuracy - In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data accuracy, which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of the University of Chicago (NORC) (the "NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study 2009/10"). The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records were fully accurate [SMR1] [SMR1]and over 20% were completely inaccurate. The[Sk2] [Sk2] low level of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust in the WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and therefore in ICANN itself. The organisation's priority in relation to WHOIS should be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over time. It should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, publish performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and registrants to improve data accuracy. In the corresponding recommendation we changed the terms to those defined in the NORC study. Do we want to use that vocabulary here along with the definitions from the NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. No Failure Met all three criteria fully - deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of all details during interview Full failure - Failed on all criteria - undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview I have suggested a revision below in yellow. Data accuracy - In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data accuracy, which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of the University of Chicago (NORC) (the "NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study 2009/10"). The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records met the study's criteria for No Failure and over 20% were categorized as Full Failure. The[low level of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust in the WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and therefore in ICANN itself. The organisation's priority in relation to WHOIS should be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over time. It should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, publish performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and registrants to improve data accuracy. I am open to changing it to something similar to what I have suggested or leaving it as it since the community knew, for the most part, what we were talking about. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: Seth M Reiss > Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 19:46:12 -1000 To: 'Alice Jansen' >, > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Chapter edits (minimalist approach employed). Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:53 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Importance: High Dear Review Team Members, As you know, your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 2 May at 06:00 UTC (time converter:http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT+-+2+May+-+06%3A00+UTC&iso=20120502T06&ah=1&am=30) Please find enclosed the agenda, also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+30+-+2+May+2012 Thanks, Kind regards Alice ----------- Tomorrow's call will be our last as a review team, and our task is to sign off the final report. If you are unable to make the call, please indicate your agreement or any comments on the executive summary and compliance chapter if you have not already done so.* 1. Executive summary - Sign off general text - Discuss outstanding proposals for amendments and reach conclusions - IDN recommendations - final text for approval. 2. Compliance chapter - Sign off general text 3. Full report (other chapters) - Report from Seth on edits (minimalist approach) - Sign off by RT 4. Steps to publication - Clean up tracked changes and combine into single document (Alice) - Final check for sense (Alice, Emily, Kathy) - Review Appendices and add new material as referenced (table showing public comments, additional Compliance documents referenced in the new chapter), and agree publication date for appendices (proposal - 11 May) 5. AOB and vote of thanks for ICANN staff support. ------------- * To date, received from Bill, Kathy, Peter and Susan. -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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 ________________________________ [SMR1]Crocker asks for a definition here. [Sk2]In the corresponding recommendation we changed the terms to those defined in the NORC study. Do we want to use that vocabulary here along with the definitions from the NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. No Failure Met all three criteria fully - deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of all details during interview Full failure - Failed on all criteria - undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120503/64337c71/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Thu May 3 02:16:40 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:16:40 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Executive Summary - clean and checked [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709873@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello all, Thanks to all for the hard work on this - I think it is a very good piece of work. Like Emily, I have avoided making any comments of substance, and I think we have worked well to achieve really clear and balanced recommendations, and have worked well together as a team to reach those positions. That said, I did make a few edits and comments where I thought it would help clarity and consistency. First, I edited a few minor easy-to-fix typos in revision mode (e.g. a missing full stop, some places where we said 'Whois' instead of 'WHOIS', a missing 'the', etc). I also spotted a number of formatting and stylistic issues that would be good to address, but I did not make all of the necessary changes, as I expect we will adopt a consistent style across the whole report, and I don't know what that is. The main ones I noticed were: * The indenting of dot points is inconsistent across the document (sometimes we indent them, sometimes not) * Sometimes acronyms are spelled out, at other times not, or not on their first usage (I started noting some obvious instances, but stopped, as there were a lot). I did not try to impose a fix for this, as I can't remember if we're using a glossary or not? * We are inconsistent about capitalising (eg 'compliance' and 'Compliance') - my personal preference is not to unnecessarily capitalise, but in either case we should be consistent This is pretty minor stuff, but would nonetheless be good to fix in my opinion, if possible. Lastly, and of more substance: * I made a couple of comments in the IDN section - I do not want to change the intent of this section (which I broadly agree with). However, I have made some comments about the clarity, as there were a couple of areas where the current text appeared unclear or ambiguous - at least to me. I haven't offered text in all instances, so will look to others to help clarify if possible. These are not show-stoppers for me, but more about clarity. * I highlighted the accuracy text already commented on by Susan, and support her proposed changes to keep our references to inaccuracy consistent (I didn't make the changes, but only highlighted the text, in case others disagree). All of my comments and edits are in revision mode, and none of them are show-stoppers for me, so if others disagree I'm happy for them not to be picked up. I hope this helps. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 3:25 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary - clean and checked Hi all Alice, as agreed this morning, has gone through and produced a clean version of the Executive Summary. I have now reviewed this for sense, and attach a mark up showing the following: 1. correction of a few minor typos 2. Page 1: our work has taken 18 months, so I put that in instead of "year-long" 3. Page 5: recommendation 1 I changed "take" to "taking" in the last bullet point for sense. 4. Page 11: on the second bullet point (recommendation 10) I added that the contact details are "for the privacy/proxy service provider". This takes on a comment/suggestion made by Seth a few days ago in notes on the draft to say that the sense of this bullet point was not clear. 5. Page 11: I think we should put in a footnote to say that "thin" whois will be explained in the glossary (and check that it is!) 6. Page 13 (findings for IDNs): I have included Sarmad's proposed language described on this morning's call. That's all - it reads well, and I think we should be proud of it. There are more nit picky points that I wanted to make about certain recommendations, but have held back. We're done. If you would like to make your own comments, please do so as soon as possible today. Alice - please can you take in these tracked changes and now combine the Executive summary into the final document for publication. Alice - the final document should also include the new chapter on compliance (cleaned up - let me know if you'd like me to review this once you've taken in the edits), and replacement of Findings and Recommendations chapters with the new text from the Executive Summary. Kind regards Emily -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120503/33d134b2/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Executive summary V10 ET.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 50647 bytes Desc: Executive summary V10 ET.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120503/33d134b2/ExecutivesummaryV10ET.docx -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120503/33d134b2/ATT00001.txt From kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu May 3 03:01:34 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 23:01:34 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Public Webinars on Draft Report In-Reply-To: <0.1.1.77B.1CD28D8A7C2E36E.0@drone148.ral.icpbounce.com> References: <0.1.1.77B.1CD28D8A7C2E36E.0@drone148.ral.icpbounce.com> Message-ID: <4FA1F50E.8040306@kathykleiman.com> FYI- Webinars from the SSR Review Team. Now it's their turn :-). Best, Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Public Webinars on Draft Report Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 22:58:45 -0400 From: ICANN News Alert To: ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02may12-en.htm ________________________________ Security, Stability& Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Public Webinars on Draft Report Friday, 11 May 2012 at 11:00 UTC and again at 19:00 UTC 2 May 2012 On 15 March 2012, the Security, Stability& Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT), constituted under the Affirmation of Commitments (http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) (AoC), published its Draft Report and Recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-en.pdf) [PDF, 2 MB] for public comment (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssrt-draft-report-15mar12-en.htm) to inform their work in producing a Final Report. Translations of the report are available: * ???????: http://www.icann.org/ar/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-ar.pdf [PDF? 721 ???? ????] * ????: http://www.icann.org/zh/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-zh.pdf [PDF, 751 KB] * English: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-en.pdf [PDF, 2 MB] * Espa?ol: http://www.icann.org/es/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-es.pdf [PDF, 683 KB] * Fran?ais: http://www.icann.org/fr/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-fr.pdf [PDF, 821 KB] * ???????: http://www.icann.org/ru/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-ru.pdf [PDF, 926 KB] Consistent with its initial announcement, the SSR Review Team now invites the Community to participate in a public webinar with a view to presenting its draft report and recommendations and soliciting the Community's feedback on its findings and conclusions. The public webinar will take place on Friday, 11 May 2012. Two sessions will be scheduled to accommodate different timezones i.e. at 11:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC. The sessions are expected to last 60 minutes. They are duplicates and will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in an Adobe Connect room with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. Staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to: alice.jansen at icann.org In order to participate, please RSVP via email to alice.jansen at icann.org by Thursday, 10 May ? 23:59 UTC to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Friday at 11.00 UTC or Friday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. For more information on the Security, Stability& Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT), please refer to: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/ssr ________________________________ This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Manage Your Subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=22253995&l=6333&s=JC3G&m=881460&c=165637 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120502/bc84001a/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu May 3 04:34:50 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 00:34:50 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? Message-ID: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, What a tour de force! It's really coming together. Thanks for all the hard work of everyone on the call last night. Quick question: can we flip the final two recommendations, and make a one word change -- the word tables? I think it may mean something different in different cultures. In the US, if you "table" a motion, you put it aside and don't act on it. Since we certainly want people to act on it here, I would like to propose the words "provides" or "lays out" instead. Best, Kathy CURRENT ==> Recommendation 15: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 16. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. Recommendation 16: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan 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. OFFERED ==> Recommendation 15: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan 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. Recommendation 16: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN /*tables */the implementation plan mentioned in */recommendation 15, above/*. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120503/60704069/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Thu May 3 05:00:21 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 15:00:21 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> References: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709B0D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello again all, I support this change, as it would improve the flow and readability of our recommendations. I would also support changing 'tables', as I had not understood that cultural nuance. Could we instead say 'publishes', to make it clear that we would expect the plan to be made public? Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 2:35 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? Hi All, What a tour de force! It's really coming together. Thanks for all the hard work of everyone on the call last night. Quick question: can we flip the final two recommendations, and make a one word change -- the word tables? I think it may mean something different in different cultures. In the US, if you "table" a motion, you put it aside and don't act on it. Since we certainly want people to act on it here, I would like to propose the words "provides" or "lays out" instead. Best, Kathy CURRENT ==> Recommendation 15: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 16. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. Recommendation 16: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan 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. OFFERED ==> Recommendation 15: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan 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. Recommendation 16: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 15, above. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120503/0682a73b/attachment.html From m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru Thu May 3 05:24:08 2012 From: m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru (Mikhail Jakushev) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 05:24:08 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? In-Reply-To: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> References: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA314AB5D6E9@M2EMBS2.mail.msk> Dear colleagues, I would also like to thank Emily and all of view for such hard and efficient work. Meanwhile I strongly support Kathy's proposals, for better clarity. Kind regards, Michael From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 8:35 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? Hi All, What a tour de force! It's really coming together. Thanks for all the hard work of everyone on the call last night. Quick question: can we flip the final two recommendations, and make a one word change -- the word tables? I think it may mean something different in different cultures. In the US, if you "table" a motion, you put it aside and don't act on it. Since we certainly want people to act on it here, I would like to propose the words "provides" or "lays out" instead. Best, Kathy CURRENT ==> Recommendation 15: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 16. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. Recommendation 16: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan 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. OFFERED ==> Recommendation 15: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan 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. Recommendation 16: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 15, above. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120503/3e4a0b46/attachment.html From m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru Thu May 3 05:24:54 2012 From: m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru (Mikhail Jakushev) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 05:24:54 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709B0D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709B0D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA314AB5D6F6@M2EMBS2.mail.msk> Dear Peter, It is :). Kind regards, Michael From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 9:00 AM To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hello again all, I support this change, as it would improve the flow and readability of our recommendations. I would also support changing 'tables', as I had not understood that cultural nuance. Could we instead say 'publishes', to make it clear that we would expect the plan to be made public? Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 2:35 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? Hi All, What a tour de force! It's really coming together. Thanks for all the hard work of everyone on the call last night. Quick question: can we flip the final two recommendations, and make a one word change -- the word tables? I think it may mean something different in different cultures. In the US, if you "table" a motion, you put it aside and don't act on it. Since we certainly want people to act on it here, I would like to propose the words "provides" or "lays out" instead. Best, Kathy CURRENT ==> Recommendation 15: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 16. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. Recommendation 16: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan 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. OFFERED ==> Recommendation 15: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan 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. Recommendation 16: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 15, above. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120503/0f2e9e4e/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu May 3 08:39:39 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 09:39:39 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? In-Reply-To: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> References: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi Kathy Excellent job spotting this. Thank you for your proposal which looks very sensible, and provides clarity and Mikhail points out. So, Alice, please would you change the word 'tables' to 'provides' in recommendation 16 as described in Kathy's mail. Kind regards Emily On Thursday, May 3, 2012, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, > What a tour de force! It's really coming together. Thanks for all the > hard work of everyone on the call last night. > > Quick question: can we flip the final two recommendations, and make a one > word change -- the word tables? I think it may mean something different in > different cultures. In the US, if you "table" a motion, you put it aside > and don't act on it. Since we certainly want people to act on it here, I > would like to propose the words "provides" or "lays out" instead. > > Best, Kathy > > CURRENT ==> > Recommendation 15: Annual Status Reports > ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its > progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review > Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the > latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in > recommendation 16. Each of these reports should contain all relevant > information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. > > Recommendation 16: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan > 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. > > > OFFERED ==> > Recommendation 15: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan > 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. > > Recommendation 16: Annual Status Reports > ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its > progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review > Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the > latest, after ICANN *tables *the implementation plan mentioned in *recommendation > 15, above*. Each of these reports should contain all relevant > information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. > > > -- * * 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/20120503/16e70153/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu May 3 10:40:53 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 11:40:53 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And to me, thank you Susan On 2 May 2012 20:25, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > Hello All, > > I have quickly reviewed the chapter edits and insertion of Steve > Crocker's comments. The only comments I have relate to page 26 > ? Data accuracy ? In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data > accuracy, which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of > the University of Chicago (NORC) (the ?NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study > 2009/10?). The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records were fully > accurate [SMR1] <#1370f04c73898cbb__msocom_1> and over 20% were > completely inaccurate. The[Sk2] <#1370f04c73898cbb__msocom_2> low level > of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust in the > WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and therefore > in ICANN itself. The organisation?s priority in relation to WHOIS should > be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over time. It > should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, publish > performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and > registrants to improve data accuracy. > ------------------------------ > > [SMR1] <#1370f04c73898cbb__msoanchor_1>Crocker asks for a definition > here.**** > > [Sk2] <#1370f04c73898cbb__msoanchor_2>In the corresponding > recommendation we changed the terms to those defined in the NORC study. Do > we want to use that vocabulary here along with the definitions from the > NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. **** > > *No Failure* Met all three criteria fully ? deliverable address, name > linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of > all details during interview**** > > Full failure ? Failed on all criteria ? undeliverable address and > unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview > **** > > In the corresponding recommendation we changed the terms to those defined > in the NORC study. Do we want to use that vocabulary here along with the > definitions from the NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. **** > > *No Failure* Met all three criteria fully ? deliverable address, name > linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of > all details during interview**** > > *Full failure* ? Failed on all criteria ? undeliverable address and > unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview > **** > > > I have suggested a revision below in yellow. > > Data accuracy ? In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data accuracy, > which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of the > University of Chicago (NORC) (the ?NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study 2009/10?). > The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records met the study's criteria > for No Failure and over 20% were categorized as Full Failure. The[<#1370f04c73898cbb__msocom_2>low > level of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust > in the WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and > therefore in ICANN itself. The organisation?s priority in relation to > WHOIS should be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over > time. It should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, > publish performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and > registrants to improve data accuracy. > > I am open to changing it to something similar to what I have suggested > or leaving it as it since the community knew, for the most part, what we > were talking about. > > > Susan Kawaguchi > Domain Name Manager > Facebook Legal Dept. > > Phone - 650 485-6064 > > From: Seth M Reiss > Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 19:46:12 -1000 > To: 'Alice Jansen' , > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC > > Chapter edits (minimalist approach employed).**** > > ** ** > > Seth**** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] > *On Behalf Of *Alice Jansen > *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2012 11:53 PM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC > *Importance:* High**** > > ** ** > > Dear Review Team Members,**** > > ** ** > > As you know, your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 2 May at 06:00 UTC > (time converter:* > http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT+-+2+May+-+06%3A00+UTC&iso=20120502T06&ah=1&am=30 > *)**** > > ** ** > > Please find enclosed the agenda, also available at: * * > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+30+-+2+May+2012 **** > > ** ** > > Thanks,**** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > ** ** > > Alice**** > > ** ** > > -----------**** > > ** ** > > Tomorrow's call will be our last as a review team, and our task is to sign > off the final report. If you are unable to make the call, please indicate > your agreement or any comments on the executive summary and compliance > chapter if you have not already done so.***** > > ** ** > > 1. Executive summary**** > > ** ** > > - Sign off general text**** > > - Discuss outstanding proposals for amendments and reach conclusions**** > > - IDN recommendations - final text for approval.**** > > ** ** > > 2. Compliance chapter**** > > ** ** > > - Sign off general text**** > > ** ** > > 3. Full report (other chapters)**** > > ** ** > > - Report from Seth on edits (minimalist approach)**** > > - Sign off by RT**** > > ** ** > > 4. Steps to publication**** > > ** ** > > - Clean up tracked changes and combine into single document (Alice)**** > > - Final check for sense (Alice, Emily, Kathy)**** > > - Review Appendices and add new material as referenced (table showing > public comments, additional Compliance documents referenced in the new > chapter), and agree publication date for appendices (proposal - 11 May)*** > * > > ** ** > > 5. AOB and vote of thanks for ICANN staff support.**** > > ** ** > > -------------**** > > * To date, received from Bill, Kathy, Peter and Susan.**** > > -- **** > > *Alice Jansen***** > > Organizational Reviews Manager**** > > *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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120503/d505f705/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu May 3 10:49:30 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 11:49:30 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Executive Summary - clean and checked [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709873@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709873@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Thank you Peter All of your comments and proposed amendments seem sensible to me. I think you raise good questions on the IDN recommendations, and look to those in the IDN small group to response, please. Thanks Emily On 3 May 2012 03:16, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: > Hello all,**** > > ** ** > > Thanks to all for the hard work on this ? I think it is a very good piece > of work.**** > > ** ** > > Like Emily, I have avoided making any comments of substance, and I think > we have worked well to achieve really clear and balanced recommendations, > and have worked well together as a team to reach those positions.**** > > ** ** > > That said, I did make a few edits and comments where I thought it would > help clarity and consistency.**** > > ** ** > > First, I edited a few minor easy-to-fix typos in revision mode (e.g. a > missing full stop, some places where we said ?Whois? instead of ?WHOIS?, a > missing ?the?, etc).**** > > ** ** > > I also spotted a number of formatting and stylistic issues that would be > good to address, but I did not make all of the necessary changes, as I > expect we will adopt a consistent style across the whole report, and I > don?t know what that is. The main ones I noticed were:**** > > ** ** > > **? **The indenting of dot points is inconsistent across the > document (sometimes we indent them, sometimes not)**** > > **? **Sometimes acronyms are spelled out, at other times not, or > not on their first usage (I started noting some obvious instances, but > stopped, as there were a lot). I did not try to impose a fix for this, as I > can?t remember if we?re using a glossary or not? **** > > **? **We are inconsistent about capitalising (eg ?compliance? and > ?Compliance?) ? my personal preference is not to unnecessarily capitalise, > but in either case we should be consistent**** > > ** ** > > This is pretty minor stuff, but would nonetheless be good to fix in my > opinion, if possible.**** > > ** ** > > Lastly, and of more substance:**** > > ** ** > > **? **I made a couple of comments in the IDN section ? I do not > want to change the intent of this section (which I broadly agree with). > However, I have made some comments about the clarity, as there were a > couple of areas where the current text appeared unclear or ambiguous ? at > least to me. I haven?t offered text in all instances, so will look to > others to help clarify if possible. These are not show-stoppers for me, but > more about clarity.**** > > **? **I highlighted the accuracy text already commented on by > Susan, and support her proposed changes to keep our references to > inaccuracy consistent (I didn?t make the changes, but only highlighted the > text, in case others disagree).**** > > ** ** > > All of my comments and edits are in revision mode, and none of them are > show-stoppers for me, so if others disagree I?m happy for them not to be > picked up.**** > > ** ** > > I hope this helps.**** > > ** ** > > Cheers,**** > > ** ** > > Peter**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Emily Taylor > *Sent:* Thursday, 3 May 2012 3:25 AM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary - clean and checked**** > > ** ** > > Hi all**** > > > Alice, as agreed this morning, has gone through and produced a clean > version of the Executive Summary.**** > > ** ** > > I have now reviewed this for sense, and attach a mark up showing the > following:**** > > ** ** > > 1. correction of a few minor typos**** > > 2. Page 1: our work has taken 18 months, so I put that in instead of > "year-long"**** > > 3. Page 5: recommendation 1 I changed "take" to "taking" in the last > bullet point for sense.**** > > 4. Page 11: on the second bullet point (recommendation 10) I added that > the contact details are "for the privacy/proxy service provider". This > takes on a comment/suggestion made by Seth a few days ago in notes on the > draft to say that the sense of this bullet point was not clear.**** > > 5. Page 11: I think we should put in a footnote to say that "thin" whois > will be explained in the glossary (and check that it is!)**** > > 6. Page 13 (findings for IDNs): I have included Sarmad's proposed language > described on this morning's call.**** > > ** ** > > That's all - it reads well, and I think we should be proud of it.**** > > ** ** > > There are more nit picky points that I wanted to make about certain > recommendations, but have held back. We're done.**** > > ** ** > > If you would like to make your own comments, please do so as soon as > possible today.**** > > ** ** > > Alice - please can you take in these tracked changes and now combine the > Executive summary into the final document for publication.**** > > ** ** > > Alice - the final document should also include the new chapter on > compliance (cleaned up - let me know if you'd like me to review this once > you've taken in the edits), and replacement of Findings and Recommendations > chapters with the new text from the Executive Summary.**** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > ** ** > > Emily > **** > > ** ** > > -- > > > **** > > * > * > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 > emily at emilytaylor.eu > > *www.etlaw.co.uk* > > Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and > Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.**** > > ** ** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > 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. > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > -- * * 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/20120503/d630061d/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu May 3 10:55:53 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 11:55:53 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709B0D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709B0D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Yes, "publishes" is a better word. Thanks On 3 May 2012 06:00, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: > Hello again all,**** > > ** ** > > I support this change, as it would improve the flow and readability of our > recommendations.**** > > ** ** > > I would also support changing ?tables?, as I had not understood that > cultural nuance. Could we instead say ?publishes?, to make it clear that we > would expect the plan to be made public?**** > > ** ** > > Cheers,**** > > ** ** > > Peter**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent:* Thursday, 3 May 2012 2:35 PM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations?**** > > ** ** > > Hi All, > What a tour de force! It's really coming together. Thanks for all the > hard work of everyone on the call last night. > > Quick question: can we flip the final two recommendations, and make a one > word change -- the word tables? I think it may mean something different in > different cultures. In the US, if you "table" a motion, you put it aside > and don't act on it. Since we certainly want people to act on it here, I > would like to propose the words "provides" or "lays out" instead. > > Best, Kathy > > CURRENT ==> > Recommendation 15: Annual Status Reports > ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its > progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review > Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the > latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in > recommendation 16. Each of these reports should contain all relevant > information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. > > Recommendation 16: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan > 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. > > > OFFERED ==> > Recommendation 15: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan > 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. > > Recommendation 16: Annual Status Reports > ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its > progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review > Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the > latest, after ICANN *tables *the implementation plan mentioned in *recommendation > 15, above*. Each of these reports should contain all relevant > information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. > > **** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy > all > copies of the original message. > > This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. > MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, > undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway > products please visit www.axway.com. > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120503/d02e3105/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu May 3 11:07:21 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:07:21 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Whole report - a proposal Message-ID: Hi there Alice has pulled together all the new text into the old document, and of course there are some issues with integration. I will go through the entire text carefully as soon as possible, but want to highlight one item for you. Please raise any objections to my proposal below as soon as poss: The section "Conclusions" in the draft report mostly reproduces our new "findings" but not always. So, the text for IDNs, Compliance, data accuracy largely maps what was originally there. One area where it our old conclusions are more expansive is "privacy and proxy". I suggest that Kathy and/or I combine the Conclusions with Findings. Where the text is the same, fine. Where it is different, we will copy it over, unless it is inconsistent with our amended recommendations. It should just be copy paste job, but I will let you know of any text changes. E -- * * 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/20120503/cb116ad2/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Thu May 3 11:29:45 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:29:45 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Whole report - a proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All I have now done this. Basically just copy pasted anything that was missing. Looking carefully at proxy/privacy, it seems that the work moved on between our draft and full report, and have therefore deleted the old "conclusions" on privacy proxy, and left instead the Findings as they were carefully negotiated recently. Shout if you disagree. E ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emily Taylor Date: 3 May 2012 12:07 Subject: Whole report - a proposal To: rt4-whois at icann.org Hi there Alice has pulled together all the new text into the old document, and of course there are some issues with integration. I will go through the entire text carefully as soon as possible, but want to highlight one item for you. Please raise any objections to my proposal below as soon as poss: The section "Conclusions" in the draft report mostly reproduces our new "findings" but not always. So, the text for IDNs, Compliance, data accuracy largely maps what was originally there. One area where it our old conclusions are more expansive is "privacy and proxy". I suggest that Kathy and/or I combine the Conclusions with Findings. Where the text is the same, fine. Where it is different, we will copy it over, unless it is inconsistent with our amended recommendations. It should just be copy paste job, but I will let you know of any text changes. E -- * * 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. -- * * 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/20120503/ab043e75/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu May 3 12:19:25 2012 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 05:19:25 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] =?utf-8?q?flip_last_two_recommendations=3F?= Message-ID: <20120503051925.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.c279cad526.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120503/83d7aaa9/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu May 3 13:42:57 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 09:42:57 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary In-Reply-To: <4FA2090F.6000701@kathykleiman.com> References: <4FA2090F.6000701@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <4FA28B61.9090303@kathykleiman.com> Dear All, I appreciate the evolution of the IDNs text (and see nice changes in the findings). Canwe go a bit further? I was wondering if we might take one more attempt to a) define IDNs (for the many readers who will have no idea), b) and define better the ambiguous term "this environment". For smarter (and more awake) people than I am, do you see a way to merge the two texts below? I truly want to make sure that everyone understands the importance and timeliness of our recommendations! Also, I saw that Peter has some ideas in this area, but did not propose wording changes (I don't think). Does some of the text below cover your thoughts? Best and tx, Kathy _Findings/Kathy: _[from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the Whois protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. International Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to great fanfare by ICANN in 2000, and in 2010 at the root level, without a corresponding change to its policies related to WHOIS. What this means, is that while domain names can now be written in Arabic for example, the contact information for these domains must still be transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. [from the Public Forum Slides] These are difficult issues, and members of the ICANN Community have worked hard to date, but the current Whois protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. Some ccTLD registries and registrars have implemented ad hoc solutions and arbitrary mappings of local scripts onto ASCII code points, and as a result, IDN Whois data today often appears as a nonsense sequence of ASCII characters. _Findings/Sarmad _Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment [/Kathy: which environment?] /, policy and implementation have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is Internationalised Domain Names (IDN), which have been available for registration at the second level for over a decade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this time, WHOIS policies were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to support non-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that Internationalisation is essential for the Internet's development as a global resource. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data -- IRD WG) in this area. As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work outside the ICANN's ambit (e.g. WIERDS initiative at IETF), to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy. Having internationalized data will also address this source of inaccuracy. [end] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120503/6484c5da/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu May 3 17:25:21 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 17:25:21 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709B0D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709B0D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <61C2572D-E871-4259-B6FA-D0B134014ECC@paypal.com> +1 On May 2, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: Hello again all, I support this change, as it would improve the flow and readability of our recommendations. I would also support changing ?tables?, as I had not understood that cultural nuance. Could we instead say ?publishes?, to make it clear that we would expect the plan to be made public? Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 2:35 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? Hi All, What a tour de force! It's really coming together. Thanks for all the hard work of everyone on the call last night. Quick question: can we flip the final two recommendations, and make a one word change -- the word tables? I think it may mean something different in different cultures. In the US, if you "table" a motion, you put it aside and don't act on it. Since we certainly want people to act on it here, I would like to propose the words "provides" or "lays out" instead. Best, Kathy CURRENT ==> Recommendation 15: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 16. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. Recommendation 16: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan 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. OFFERED ==> Recommendation 15: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan 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. Recommendation 16: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 15, above. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu May 3 17:27:58 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 13:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <61C2572D-E871-4259-B6FA-D0B134014ECC@paypal.com> References: <4FA20AEA.1040300@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709B0D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <61C2572D-E871-4259-B6FA-D0B134014ECC@paypal.com> Message-ID: <4FA2C01E.1050208@kathykleiman.com> +2 Kathy > +1 > > On May 2, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: > > Hello again all, > > I support this change, as it would improve the flow and readability of our recommendations. > > I would also support changing ?tables?, as I had not understood that cultural nuance. Could we instead say ?publishes?, to make it clear that we would expect the plan to be made public? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 2:35 PM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations? > > Hi All, > What a tour de force! It's really coming together. Thanks for all the hard work of everyone on the call last night. > > Quick question: can we flip the final two recommendations, and make a one word change -- the word tables? I think it may mean something different in different cultures. In the US, if you "table" a motion, you put it aside and don't act on it. Since we certainly want people to act on it here, I would like to propose the words "provides" or "lays out" instead. > > Best, Kathy > > CURRENT ==> > Recommendation 15: Annual Status Reports > ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 16. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. > > Recommendation 16: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan > 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. > > > OFFERED ==> > Recommendation 15: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan > 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. > > Recommendation 16: Annual Status Reports > ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 15, above. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all > copies of the original message. > > This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. > MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Thu May 3 23:18:43 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 09:18:43 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Whole report - a proposal [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709ED3@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hi Emily, Thanks for clarifying. The new findings text was finely balanced in places, so I think your approach of leaving it untouched seems sensible to me. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 9:30 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Whole report - a proposal Hi All I have now done this. Basically just copy pasted anything that was missing. Looking carefully at proxy/privacy, it seems that the work moved on between our draft and full report, and have therefore deleted the old "conclusions" on privacy proxy, and left instead the Findings as they were carefully negotiated recently. Shout if you disagree. E ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emily Taylor > Date: 3 May 2012 12:07 Subject: Whole report - a proposal To: rt4-whois at icann.org Hi there Alice has pulled together all the new text into the old document, and of course there are some issues with integration. I will go through the entire text carefully as soon as possible, but want to highlight one item for you. Please raise any objections to my proposal below as soon as poss: The section "Conclusions" in the draft report mostly reproduces our new "findings" but not always. So, the text for IDNs, Compliance, data accuracy largely maps what was originally there. One area where it our old conclusions are more expansive is "privacy and proxy". I suggest that Kathy and/or I combine the Conclusions with Findings. Where the text is the same, fine. Where it is different, we will copy it over, unless it is inconsistent with our amended recommendations. It should just be copy paste job, but I will let you know of any text changes. E -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120504/0e863c3b/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Fri May 4 00:40:03 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 20:40:03 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Whole report - a proposal [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709ED3@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3352709ED3@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <4FA32563.8010700@kathykleiman.com> Sorry, I can't picture it. Is there a redline? Tx! Kathy' : > > Hi Emily, > > Thanks for clarifying. The new findings text was finely balanced in > places, so I think your approach of leaving it untouched seems > sensible to me. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > *From:*rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Taylor > *Sent:* Thursday, 3 May 2012 9:30 PM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Whole report - a proposal > > Hi All > > I have now done this. Basically just copy pasted anything that was > missing. > > Looking carefully at proxy/privacy, it seems that the work moved on > between our draft and full report, and have therefore deleted the old > "conclusions" on privacy proxy, and left instead the Findings as they > were carefully negotiated recently. > > Shout if you disagree. > > E > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Emily Taylor* > > Date: 3 May 2012 12:07 > Subject: Whole report - a proposal > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > > Hi there > > Alice has pulled together all the new text into the old document, and > of course there are some issues with integration. > > I will go through the entire text carefully as soon as possible, but > want to highlight one item for you. Please raise any objections to my > proposal below as soon as poss: > > The section "Conclusions" in the draft report mostly reproduces our > new "findings" but not always. So, the text for IDNs, Compliance, > data accuracy largely maps what was originally there. One area where > it our old conclusions are more expansive is "privacy and proxy". I > suggest that Kathy and/or I combine the Conclusions with Findings. > Where the text is the same, fine. Where it is different, we will copy > it over, unless it is inconsistent with our amended recommendations. > > It should just be copy paste job, but I will let you know of any text > changes. > > E > > > -- > > > __ > > 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. > > > > > -- > > > __ > > 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. > > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and > destroy all > copies of the original message. > > This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. > MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, > undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway > products please visit www.axway.com. > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120503/3330aa81/attachment.html From lutz at iks-jena.de Fri May 4 06:54:28 2012 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 08:54:28 +0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] =?utf-8?q?Judge=3A_An_IP-Address_Doesn=E2=80=99t_Iden?= =?utf-8?q?tify_a_Person?= Message-ID: <20120504065428.GB28829@belenus.iks-jena.de> http://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-person-120503/ [...] The copyright holders who start these cases generally provide nothing more than an IP-address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, allowing them to ask Internet providers for the personal details of the alleged offenders. The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Or put differently; an IP-address is not a person. [...] One of the arguments discussed in detail is the copyright holders? claim that IP-addresses can identify the alleged infringers. According to Judge Brown this claim is very weak. ?The assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time,? he writes. ?An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.? ?Thus, it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function ? here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film ? than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.? The Judge continues by arguing that having an IP-address as evidence is even weaker than a telephone number, as the majority of US homes have a wireless network nowadays. This means that many people, including complete strangers if one has an open network, can use the same IP-address simultaneously. The consequences for WHOIS access are ... From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Fri May 4 07:08:44 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 17:08:44 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <4FA28B61.9090303@kathykleiman.com> References: <4FA2090F.6000701@kathykleiman.com> <4FA28B61.9090303@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335274B5F5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello again all, As I've said previously, I'm no expert in this area, but to hopefully help move this forward I have attempted to pick up what seemed to be the major themes from both sets of text. I hope this helps, and please feel free to edit or discard as needed. Cheers, Peter Findings Developments associated with the WHOIS protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is International Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs have been available for registration at the second level for over a decade, and were introduced in 2010 at the root level. However, these developments were not accompanied by corresponding changes related to WHOIS. In short, the current WHOIS protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters, and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. This means that while domain names can now be written in a range of scrips (such as Arabic and Cyrillic), the contact information for these domains must still be transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy. These are difficult issues, and there is ongoing work within ICANN in this area (e.g. the joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data - IRD WG). As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work beyond ICANN's ambit, to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 11:43 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary Dear All, I appreciate the evolution of the IDNs text (and see nice changes in the findings). Canwe go a bit further? I was wondering if we might take one more attempt to a) define IDNs (for the many readers who will have no idea), b) and define better the ambiguous term "this environment". For smarter (and more awake) people than I am, do you see a way to merge the two texts below? I truly want to make sure that everyone understands the importance and timeliness of our recommendations! Also, I saw that Peter has some ideas in this area, but did not propose wording changes (I don't think). Does some of the text below cover your thoughts? Best and tx, Kathy Findings/Kathy: [from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the Whois protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. International Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to great fanfare by ICANN in 2000, and in 2010 at the root level, without a corresponding change to its policies related to WHOIS. What this means, is that while domain names can now be written in Arabic for example, the contact information for these domains must still be transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. [from the Public Forum Slides] These are difficult issues, and members of the ICANN Community have worked hard to date, but the current Whois protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. Some ccTLD registries and registrars have implemented ad hoc solutions and arbitrary mappings of local scripts onto ASCII code points, and as a result, IDN Whois data today often appears as a nonsense sequence of ASCII characters. Findings/Sarmad Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment [Kathy: which environment?] , policy and implementation have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is Internationalised Domain Names (IDN), which have been available for registration at the second level for over a decade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this time, WHOIS policies were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to support non-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that Internationalisation is essential for the Internet's development as a global resource. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data - IRD WG) in this area. As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work outside the ICANN's ambit (e.g. WIERDS initiative at IETF), to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy. Having internationalized data will also address this source of inaccuracy. [end] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120504/0a12b3e2/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Fri May 4 08:07:55 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 09:07:55 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335274B5F5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <4FA2090F.6000701@kathykleiman.com> <4FA28B61.9090303@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335274B5F5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Thank you Peter I think this is a good synthesis. One extra element, which is easily forgotten, is that internationalised WHOIS data isn't just an IDN problem, but one which has been around ever since Chinese, Arabic and Russian speakers have been registering domain names. So, the delay in addressing this has not just been a year (since introduction of IDN.IDN) or a decade (IDN.tld), it's even longer than that. So, I've added some language for this, based on the first paragraph of the IDN chapter (highlighted below). Kind regards Emily On 4 May 2012 08:08, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: > Hello again all,**** > > ** ** > > As I?ve said previously, I?m no expert in this area, but to hopefully help > move this forward I have attempted to pick up what seemed to be the major > themes from both sets of text.**** > > ** ** > > I hope this helps, and please feel free to edit or discard as needed.**** > > ** ** > > Cheers,**** > > ** ** > > Peter**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *Findings* > > > Developments associated with the WHOIS protocol and registration data have > not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is > International Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs have been available for > registration at the second level for over a decade, and were introduced in > 2010 at the root level. However, these developments were not accompanied by > corresponding changes related to WHOIS. In short, the current WHOIS > protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters, and cannot signal a > non-ASCII script. > > This means that while domain names can now be written in a range of scrips > (such as Arabic and Cyrillic), the contact information must still be > transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. The NORC Study on > Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent > inaccuracy. ** > > ** > The failure to reflect internationalised registration data does not just affect IDNs, however, and has existed for much longer - ever since domain names have been registered by registrants globally. Global users need to represent their local names, postal addresses and other contact and technical information in the script(s) which they use. > ** > > These are difficult issues, and there is ongoing work within ICANN in this > area (e.g. the joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised > Registration Data ? IRD WG). As the need is imminent, this work needs to > proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work beyond > ICANN?s ambit, to make internationalised domain name registration data > accessible. > > > **** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent:* Thursday, 3 May 2012 11:43 PM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to > the readability of the rest of the Summary**** > > ** ** > > Dear All, > I appreciate the evolution of the IDNs text (and see nice changes in the > findings). Canwe go a bit further? I was wondering if we might take one > more attempt to a) define IDNs (for the many readers who will have no > idea), b) and define better the ambiguous term "this environment". > > For smarter (and more awake) people than I am, do you see a way to merge > the two texts below? I truly want to make sure that everyone understands > the importance and timeliness of our recommendations! > > Also, I saw that Peter has some ideas in this area, but did not propose > wording changes (I don't think). Does some of the text below cover your > thoughts? > > Best and tx, > Kathy > > > *Findings/Kathy: > *[from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the Whois > protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. > International Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to great fanfare by ICANN > in 2000, and in 2010 at the root level, without a corresponding change to > its policies related to WHOIS. > > What this means, is that while domain names can now be written in Arabic > for example, the contact information for these domains must still be > transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. [from the Public > Forum Slides] These are difficult issues, and members of the ICANN > Community have worked hard to date, but the current Whois protocol has no > support for non-ASCII characters and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. Some > ccTLD registries and registrars have implemented ad hoc solutions and > arbitrary mappings of local scripts onto ASCII code points, and as a > result, IDN Whois data today often appears as a nonsense sequence of ASCII > characters. > > *Findings/Sarmad > *Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment [*Kathy: > which environment?] *, policy and implementation have not kept pace with > the real world. A significant example of this is Internationalised Domain > Names (IDN), which have been available for registration at the second level > for over a decade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this > time, WHOIS policies were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to > support non-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that > Internationalisation is essential for the Internet?s development as a > global resource. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. joint gNSO and > SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data ? IRD WG) in this > area. As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in > coordination with other relevant work outside the ICANN?s ambit (e.g. > WIERDS initiative at IETF), to make internationalised domain name > registration data accessible. > > The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major > cause of apparent inaccuracy. Having internationalized data will also > address this source of inaccuracy. > > [end]**** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy > all > copies of the original message. > > This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. > MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, > undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway > products please visit www.axway.com. > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120504/a088eef4/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Fri May 4 16:19:45 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 12:19:45 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: <4FA2090F.6000701@kathykleiman.com> <4FA28B61.9090303@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335274B5F5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <4FA401A1.6040306@kathykleiman.com> I like it, tx Peter and Emily. However, I defer to our lead IDN drafters, Sarmad and Michael, for final approval. What I like is that it helps makes the whole issue approachable -- and hopefully the rest of the Community will spend more time and attention on this issue in which a core of dedicated people have worked so hard and so well. Best, Kathy > Thank you Peter > > I think this is a good synthesis. One extra element, which is easily > forgotten, is that internationalised WHOIS data isn't just an IDN > problem, but one which has been around ever since Chinese, Arabic and > Russian speakers have been registering domain names. So, the delay in > addressing this has not just been a year (since introduction of > IDN.IDN) or a decade (IDN.tld), it's even longer than that. > > So, I've added some language for this, based on the first paragraph of > the IDN chapter (highlighted below). > > Kind regards > > Emily > > On 4 May 2012 08:08, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: > > Hello again all, > > As I?ve said previously, I?m no expert in this area, but to > hopefully help move this forward I have attempted to pick up what > seemed to be the major themes from both sets of text. > > I hope this helps, and please feel free to edit or discard as needed. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > _Findings_ > > Developments associated with the WHOIS protocol and registration > data have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example > of this is International Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs have been > available for registration at the second level for over a decade, > and were introduced in 2010 at the root level. However, these > developments were not accompanied by corresponding changes related > to WHOIS. In short, the current WHOIS protocol has no support for > non-ASCII characters, and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. > > This means that while domain names can now be written in a range > of scrips (such as Arabic and Cyrillic), the contact > information must still be transliterated into a format ill-suited > to the purpose. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN > contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy. > > > The failure to reflect internationalised registration data does not > just affect IDNs, however, and has existed for much longer - ever > since domain names have been registered by registrants globally. > Global users need to represent their local names, postal addresses > and other contact and technical information in the script(s) which > they use. > > These are difficult issues, and there is ongoing work within ICANN > in this area (e.g. the joint gNSO and SSAC working group on > Internationalised Registration Data ? IRD WG). As the need is > imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination > with other relevant work beyond ICANN?s ambit, to make > internationalised domain name registration data accessible. > > > *From:*rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > > [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent:* Thursday, 3 May 2012 11:43 PM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it > up to the readability of the rest of the Summary > > Dear All, > I appreciate the evolution of the IDNs text (and see nice changes > in the findings). Canwe go a bit further? I was wondering if we > might take one more attempt to a) define IDNs (for the many > readers who will have no idea), b) and define better the ambiguous > term "this environment". > > For smarter (and more awake) people than I am, do you see a way to > merge the two texts below? I truly want to make sure that everyone > understands the importance and timeliness of our recommendations! > > Also, I saw that Peter has some ideas in this area, but did not > propose wording changes (I don't think). Does some of the text > below cover your thoughts? > > Best and tx, > Kathy > > > _Findings/Kathy: > _[from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the > Whois protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the > real world. International Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to > great fanfare by ICANN in 2000, and in 2010 at the root level, > without a corresponding change to its policies related to WHOIS. > > What this means, is that while domain names can now be written in > Arabic for example, the contact information for these domains must > still be transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. > [from the Public Forum Slides] These are difficult issues, and > members of the ICANN Community have worked hard to date, but the > current Whois protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters and > cannot signal a non-ASCII script. Some ccTLD registries and > registrars have implemented ad hoc solutions and arbitrary > mappings of local scripts onto ASCII code points, and as a result, > IDN Whois data today often appears as a nonsense sequence of ASCII > characters. > > _Findings/Sarmad > _Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment > [/Kathy: which environment?] /, policy and implementation have not > kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is > Internationalised Domain Names (IDN), which have been available > for registration at the second level for over a decade, and at the > Top Level for more than a year. During this time, WHOIS policies > were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to support > non-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that > Internationalisation is essential for the Internet?s development > as a global resource. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. > joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised > Registration Data ? IRD WG) in this area. As the need is > imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination > with other relevant work outside the ICANN?s ambit (e.g. WIERDS > initiative at IETF), to make internationalised domain name > registration data accessible. > > The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a > major cause of apparent inaccuracy. Having internationalized data > will also address this source of inaccuracy. > > [end] > > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are > not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and > destroy all > copies of the original message. > > This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. > MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, > undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on > Axway products please visit www.axway.com . > > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > > -- > > > > > __ > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 > emily at emilytaylor.eu > > *www.etlaw.co.uk * > > Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England > and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120504/da70b4bf/attachment.html From m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru Fri May 4 16:22:57 2012 From: m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru (Mikhail Jakushev) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 16:22:57 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <4FA401A1.6040306@kathykleiman.com> References: <4FA2090F.6000701@kathykleiman.com> <4FA28B61.9090303@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335274B5F5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <4FA401A1.6040306@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA314AB5D9B5@M2EMBS2.mail.msk> I approve :). Rgds, M. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:20 PM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I like it, tx Peter and Emily. However, I defer to our lead IDN drafters, Sarmad and Michael, for final approval. What I like is that it helps makes the whole issue approachable -- and hopefully the rest of the Community will spend more time and attention on this issue in which a core of dedicated people have worked so hard and so well. Best, Kathy Thank you Peter I think this is a good synthesis. One extra element, which is easily forgotten, is that internationalised WHOIS data isn't just an IDN problem, but one which has been around ever since Chinese, Arabic and Russian speakers have been registering domain names. So, the delay in addressing this has not just been a year (since introduction of IDN.IDN) or a decade (IDN.tld), it's even longer than that. So, I've added some language for this, based on the first paragraph of the IDN chapter (highlighted below). Kind regards Emily On 4 May 2012 08:08, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote: Hello again all, As I've said previously, I'm no expert in this area, but to hopefully help move this forward I have attempted to pick up what seemed to be the major themes from both sets of text. I hope this helps, and please feel free to edit or discard as needed. Cheers, Peter Findings Developments associated with the WHOIS protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is International Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs have been available for registration at the second level for over a decade, and were introduced in 2010 at the root level. However, these developments were not accompanied by corresponding changes related to WHOIS. In short, the current WHOIS protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters, and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. This means that while domain names can now be written in a range of scrips (such as Arabic and Cyrillic), the contact information must still be transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy. The failure to reflect internationalised registration data does not just affect IDNs, however, and has existed for much longer - ever since domain names have been registered by registrants globally. Global users need to represent their local names, postal addresses and other contact and technical information in the script(s) which they use. These are difficult issues, and there is ongoing work within ICANN in this area (e.g. the joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data - IRD WG). As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work beyond ICANN's ambit, to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 11:43 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary Dear All, I appreciate the evolution of the IDNs text (and see nice changes in the findings). Canwe go a bit further? I was wondering if we might take one more attempt to a) define IDNs (for the many readers who will have no idea), b) and define better the ambiguous term "this environment". For smarter (and more awake) people than I am, do you see a way to merge the two texts below? I truly want to make sure that everyone understands the importance and timeliness of our recommendations! Also, I saw that Peter has some ideas in this area, but did not propose wording changes (I don't think). Does some of the text below cover your thoughts? Best and tx, Kathy Findings/Kathy: [from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the Whois protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. International Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to great fanfare by ICANN in 2000, and in 2010 at the root level, without a corresponding change to its policies related to WHOIS. What this means, is that while domain names can now be written in Arabic for example, the contact information for these domains must still be transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. [from the Public Forum Slides] These are difficult issues, and members of the ICANN Community have worked hard to date, but the current Whois protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. Some ccTLD registries and registrars have implemented ad hoc solutions and arbitrary mappings of local scripts onto ASCII code points, and as a result, IDN Whois data today often appears as a nonsense sequence of ASCII characters. Findings/Sarmad Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment [Kathy: which environment?] , policy and implementation have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is Internationalised Domain Names (IDN), which have been available for registration at the second level for over a decade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this time, WHOIS policies were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to support non-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that Internationalisation is essential for the Internet's development as a global resource. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data - IRD WG) in this area. As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work outside the ICANN's ambit (e.g. WIERDS initiative at IETF), to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy. Having internationalized data will also address this source of inaccuracy. [end] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [Description: Image removed by sender.] 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/20120504/f5fa5037/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: ~WRD000.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120504/f5fa5037/WRD000.jpg From sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk Fri May 4 16:34:33 2012 From: sarmad.hussain at kics.edu.pk (Sarmad Hussain) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 21:34:33 +0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <4FA401A1.6040306@kathykleiman.com> References: <4FA2090F.6000701@kathykleiman.com> <4FA28B61.9090303@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335274B5F5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <4FA401A1.6040306@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <4fa4051e.8661b40a.36b5.ffff8625@mx.google.com> I am Ok with the revisions. Regards, Sarmad From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:20 PM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I like it, tx Peter and Emily. However, I defer to our lead IDN drafters, Sarmad and Michael, for final approval. What I like is that it helps makes the whole issue approachable -- and hopefully the rest of the Community will spend more time and attention on this issue in which a core of dedicated people have worked so hard and so well. Best, Kathy Thank you Peter I think this is a good synthesis. One extra element, which is easily forgotten, is that internationalised WHOIS data isn't just an IDN problem, but one which has been around ever since Chinese, Arabic and Russian speakers have been registering domain names. So, the delay in addressing this has not just been a year (since introduction of IDN.IDN) or a decade (IDN.tld), it's even longer than that. So, I've added some language for this, based on the first paragraph of the IDN chapter (highlighted below). Kind regards Emily On 4 May 2012 08:08, Nettlefold, Peter wrote: Hello again all, As I've said previously, I'm no expert in this area, but to hopefully help move this forward I have attempted to pick up what seemed to be the major themes from both sets of text. I hope this helps, and please feel free to edit or discard as needed. Cheers, Peter Findings Developments associated with the WHOIS protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is International Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs have been available for registration at the second level for over a decade, and were introduced in 2010 at the root level. However, these developments were not accompanied by corresponding changes related to WHOIS. In short, the current WHOIS protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters, and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. This means that while domain names can now be written in a range of scrips (such as Arabic and Cyrillic), the contact information must still be transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy. The failure to reflect internationalised registration data does not just affect IDNs, however, and has existed for much longer - ever since domain names have been registered by registrants globally. Global users need to represent their local names, postal addresses and other contact and technical information in the script(s) which they use. These are difficult issues, and there is ongoing work within ICANN in this area (e.g. the joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data - IRD WG). As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work beyond ICANN's ambit, to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 11:43 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary Dear All, I appreciate the evolution of the IDNs text (and see nice changes in the findings). Canwe go a bit further? I was wondering if we might take one more attempt to a) define IDNs (for the many readers who will have no idea), b) and define better the ambiguous term "this environment". For smarter (and more awake) people than I am, do you see a way to merge the two texts below? I truly want to make sure that everyone understands the importance and timeliness of our recommendations! Also, I saw that Peter has some ideas in this area, but did not propose wording changes (I don't think). Does some of the text below cover your thoughts? Best and tx, Kathy Findings/Kathy: [from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the Whois protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. International Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to great fanfare by ICANN in 2000, and in 2010 at the root level, without a corresponding change to its policies related to WHOIS. What this means, is that while domain names can now be written in Arabic for example, the contact information for these domains must still be transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. [from the Public Forum Slides] These are difficult issues, and members of the ICANN Community have worked hard to date, but the current Whois protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. Some ccTLD registries and registrars have implemented ad hoc solutions and arbitrary mappings of local scripts onto ASCII code points, and as a result, IDN Whois data today often appears as a nonsense sequence of ASCII characters. Findings/Sarmad Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment [Kathy: which environment?] , policy and implementation have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is Internationalised Domain Names (IDN), which have been available for registration at the second level for over a decade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this time, WHOIS policies were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to support non-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that Internationalisation is essential for the Internet's development as a global resource. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data - IRD WG) in this area. As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work outside the ICANN's ambit (e.g. WIERDS initiative at IETF), to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy. Having internationalized data will also address this source of inaccuracy. [end] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 . m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120504/8fd1890c/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Fri May 4 16:43:30 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 17:43:30 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <4fa4051e.8661b40a.36b5.ffff8625@mx.google.com> References: <4FA2090F.6000701@kathykleiman.com> <4FA28B61.9090303@kathykleiman.com> <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335274B5F5@EMB01.dept.gov.au> <4FA401A1.6040306@kathykleiman.com> <4fa4051e.8661b40a.36b5.ffff8625@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Thanks all Alice - please would you now replace the Findings for the IDN text with the following, which is agreed: *Findings* > > > Developments associated with the WHOIS protocol and registration data have > not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is > International Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs have been available for > registration at the second level for over a decade, and were introduced in > 2010 at the root level. However, these developments were not accompanied by > corresponding changes related to WHOIS. In short, the current WHOIS > protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters, and cannot signal a > non-ASCII script. > > This means that while domain names can now be written in a range of scrips > (such as Arabic and Cyrillic), the contact information must still be > transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. The NORC Study on > Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent > inaccuracy. ** > > ** > The failure to reflect internationalised registration data does not just affect IDNs, however, and has existed for much longer - ever since domain names have been registered by registrants globally. Global users need to represent their local names, postal addresses and other contact and technical information in the script(s) which they use. Thanks Emily On 4 May 2012 17:34, Sarmad Hussain wrote: > I am Ok with the revisions. **** > > ** ** > > Regards, > Sarmad**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman > > *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2012 9:20 PM > *To:* Emily Taylor > *Cc:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up > to the readability of the rest of the Summary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > > ** ** > > I like it, tx Peter and Emily. However, I defer to our lead IDN drafters, > Sarmad and Michael, for final approval. > > What I like is that it helps makes the whole issue approachable -- and > hopefully the rest of the Community will spend more time and attention on > this issue in which a core of dedicated people have worked so hard and so > well. > > Best, > Kathy > > > > > **** > > Thank you Peter **** > > ** ** > > I think this is a good synthesis. One extra element, which is easily > forgotten, is that internationalised WHOIS data isn't just an IDN problem, > but one which has been around ever since Chinese, Arabic and Russian > speakers have been registering domain names. So, the delay in addressing > this has not just been a year (since introduction of IDN.IDN) or a decade > (IDN.tld), it's even longer than that.**** > > ** ** > > So, I've added some language for this, based on the first paragraph of the > IDN chapter (highlighted below).**** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > > Emily**** > > On 4 May 2012 08:08, Nettlefold, Peter > wrote:**** > > Hello again all,**** > > **** > > As I?ve said previously, I?m no expert in this area, but to hopefully help > move this forward I have attempted to pick up what seemed to be the major > themes from both sets of text.**** > > **** > > I hope this helps, and please feel free to edit or discard as needed.**** > > **** > > Cheers,**** > > **** > > Peter**** > > **** > > **** > > *Findings***** > > **** > > Developments associated with the WHOIS protocol and registration data > have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is > International Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs have been available for > registration at the second level for over a decade, and were introduced in > 2010 at the root level. However, these developments were not accompanied by > corresponding changes related to WHOIS. In short, the current WHOIS > protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters, and cannot signal a > non-ASCII script.**** > > This means that while domain names can now be written in a range of > scrips (such as Arabic and Cyrillic), the contact information must still be > transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. The NORC Study on > Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent > inaccuracy. **** > > ** ** > > The failure to reflect internationalised registration data does not just > affect IDNs, however, and has existed for much longer - ever since domain > names have been registered by registrants globally. Global users need to > represent their local names, postal addresses and other contact and > technical information in the script(s) which they use. **** > > **** > > These are difficult issues, and there is ongoing work within ICANN in this > area (e.g. the joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised > Registration Data ? IRD WG). As the need is imminent, this work needs to > proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work beyond > ICANN?s ambit, to make internationalised domain name registration data > accessible. > **** > > **** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent:* Thursday, 3 May 2012 11:43 PM > *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to > the readability of the rest of the Summary**** > > **** > > Dear All, > I appreciate the evolution of the IDNs text (and see nice changes in the > findings). Canwe go a bit further? I was wondering if we might take one > more attempt to a) define IDNs (for the many readers who will have no > idea), b) and define better the ambiguous term "this environment". > > For smarter (and more awake) people than I am, do you see a way to merge > the two texts below? I truly want to make sure that everyone understands > the importance and timeliness of our recommendations! > > Also, I saw that Peter has some ideas in this area, but did not propose > wording changes (I don't think). Does some of the text below cover your > thoughts? > > Best and tx, > Kathy > > > *Findings/Kathy: > *[from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the Whois > protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. > International Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to great fanfare by ICANN > in 2000, and in 2010 at the root level, without a corresponding change to > its policies related to WHOIS. > > What this means, is that while domain names can now be written in Arabic > for example, the contact information for these domains must still be > transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. [from the Public > Forum Slides] These are difficult issues, and members of the ICANN > Community have worked hard to date, but the current Whois protocol has no > support for non-ASCII characters and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. Some > ccTLD registries and registrars have implemented ad hoc solutions and > arbitrary mappings of local scripts onto ASCII code points, and as a > result, IDN Whois data today often appears as a nonsense sequence of ASCII > characters. > > *Findings/Sarmad > *Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment [*Kathy: > which environment?] *, policy and implementation have not kept pace with > the real world. A significant example of this is Internationalised Domain > Names (IDN), which have been available for registration at the second level > for over a decade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this > time, WHOIS policies were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to > support non-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that > Internationalisation is essential for the Internet?s development as a > global resource. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. joint gNSO and > SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data ? IRD WG) in this > area. As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in > coordination with other relevant work outside the ICANN?s ambit (e.g. > WIERDS initiative at IETF), to make internationalised domain name > registration data accessible. > > The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major > cause of apparent inaccuracy. Having internationalized data will also > address this source of inaccuracy. > > [end]**** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy > all > copies of the original message. > > This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. > MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, > undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway > products please visit www.axway.com. > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***** > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > > > **** > > * > * > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 > emily at emilytaylor.eu > > *www.etlaw.co.uk* > > Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and > Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- * * 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/20120504/1bced95e/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Sat May 5 16:35:37 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 12:35:37 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan In-Reply-To: <0.1.4.BB1.1CD2A87879DD070.0@drone163.ral.icpbounce.com> References: <0.1.4.BB1.1CD2A87879DD070.0@drone163.ral.icpbounce.com> Message-ID: <4FA556D9.8060900@kathykleiman.com> FYI - As the Compliance recommendations created changes before our final report, so too the IDN recommendations may be spurring faster and more responsive action. Congratulations to Sarmad, Michael and Wilfried! Best, Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 02:23:04 -0400 From: ICANN News Alert To: ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04may12-en.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan 4 May 2012 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 4 May 2012 *Categories/Tags:* Top-Level Domains *Purpose (Brief):* The purpose of this project is to resolve many of the issues necessary to delegate variant TLDs. The first IDN Variant Issues Project explored the issues associated with the potential inclusion of IDN variant TLDs in the DNS root zone, at the request of the ICANN Board and the community. The first two phases of the project have been completed with the publication of the final Integrated Issues Report on 20 February 2012 and the project is now entering its next phase. ICANN created a program plan for next steps, posted it for public comment, and presented it in a session at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. Based on the comments received to date, the project plan has been updated, and the team is seeking input on the revised plan during this public comment period. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-variant-tld-revised-program-plan-04may12-en.htm This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! Manage Your Subscription -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120505/922e3f7d/attachment.html From sarmad at cantab.net Sat May 5 19:09:17 2012 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr.Sarmad Hussain) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 00:09:17 +0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan In-Reply-To: <4FA556D9.8060900@kathykleiman.com> References: <0.1.4.BB1.1CD2A87879DD070.0@drone163.ral.icpbounce.com> <4FA556D9.8060900@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Dear Kathy, You are kind, but we do not deserve the credit for IDN VIP (variant issues project). If anything, variants are going to make it much harder for WHOIS implementation for IDNs. Consider answering the question on whether a variant of a TLD should have an independent WHOIS entry or should point to the WHOIS info of the base label? Would such a entry be same for allocated, delegated and blocked variants? Etc. Very interesting challenges, yet to be resolved. But first let us get the IDN WHOIS working, will worry about the WHOIS for variants in phase 2 ;-) regards, Sarmad On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > FYI - As the Compliance recommendations created changes before our final > report, so too the IDN recommendations may be spurring faster and more > responsive action. Congratulations to Sarmad, Michael and Wilfried! > Best, > Kathy > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN > Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 > 02:23:04 -0400 From: ICANN News Alert To: > > > [image: ICANN] News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04may12-en.htm > ------------------------------ > IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan > > 4 May 2012 > > > *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 4 May 2012 * > Categories/Tags:* Top-Level Domains *Purpose (Brief):* The purpose of > this project is to resolve many of the issues necessary to delegate variant > TLDs. The first IDN Variant Issues Project explored the issues associated > with the potential inclusion of IDN variant TLDs in the DNS root zone, at > the request of the ICANN Board and the community. The first two phases of > the project have been completed with the publication of the final > Integrated Issues Report on 20 February 2012 and the project is now > entering its next phase. ICANN created a program plan for next steps, > posted it for public comment, and presented it in a session at the ICANN > meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. Based on the comments received to > date, the project plan has been updated, and the team is seeking input on > the revised plan during this public comment period. *Public Comment Box > Link:* > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-variant-tld-revised-program-plan-04may12-en.htm > > > This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com from: > > ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 > > Email Marketing by [image: iContact - Try It Free!] > Manage Your Subscription > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120506/3e1424a0/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Sun May 6 17:27:21 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 13:27:21 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan In-Reply-To: References: <0.1.4.BB1.1CD2A87879DD070.0@drone163.ral.icpbounce.com> <4FA556D9.8060900@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <4FA6B479.1040307@kathykleiman.com> Dear Sarmad, I can't even imagine having to grapple with these difficulties, or resolve these issues. It makes even the proxy/privacy issues look easy! Best, Kathy : > Dear Kathy, > > You are kind, but we do not deserve the credit for IDN VIP (variant > issues project). If anything, variants are going to make it much > harder for WHOIS implementation for IDNs. Consider answering the > question on whether a variant of a TLD should have an independent > WHOIS entry or should point to the WHOIS info of the base label? > Would such a entry be same for allocated, delegated and blocked > variants? Etc. Very interesting challenges, yet to be resolved. But > first let us get the IDN WHOIS working, will worry about the WHOIS for > variants in phase 2 ;-) > > regards, > Sarmad > > > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > FYI - As the Compliance recommendations created changes before our > final report, so too the IDN recommendations may be spurring > faster and more responsive action. Congratulations to Sarmad, > Michael and Wilfried! > Best, > Kathy > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised > Program Plan > Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 02:23:04 -0400 > From: ICANN News Alert > > To: > > > > ICANN > > > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04may12-en.htm > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan > > 4 May 2012 > > *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 4 May 2012 > *Categories/Tags:* Top-Level Domains > *Purpose (Brief):* The purpose of this project is to resolve many > of the issues necessary to delegate variant TLDs. The first IDN > Variant Issues Project explored the issues associated with the > potential inclusion of IDN variant TLDs in the DNS root zone, at > the request of the ICANN Board and the community. The first two > phases of the project have been completed with the publication of > the final Integrated Issues Report on 20 February 2012 and the > project is now entering its next phase. ICANN created a program > plan for next steps, posted it for public comment, and presented > it in a session at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. > Based on the comments received to date, the project plan has been > updated, and the team is seeking input on the revised plan during > this public comment period. > *Public Comment Box Link:* > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-variant-tld-revised-program-plan-04may12-en.htm > > > > > This message was sent to kathy at kathykleiman.com > from: > > ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 > > > > Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! > > > Manage Your Subscription > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120506/4b3bbc1d/attachment.html