From omar at kaminski.adv.br Tue Jul 3 01:25:07 2012 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:25:07 -0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] GAC endorses WHOIS RT recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335772254D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335772254D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: Glad to know, thanks for the update, Peter! * 5. WHOIS Review Team* a. The GAC welcomes the final report of the WHOIS Review Team, and notes that there are a number of common themes identified by the WHOIS Review Team?s recommendations, the LEA/GAC recommendations, and the GAC?s advice relating to ICANN?s industry oversight and compliance function. b. The GAC endorses the recommendations of the WHOIS Review Team, and will closely monitor the Board?s response and subsequent implementation activities. * The GAC advises the Board * - to take account of the WHOIS Review Team?s recommendations as part of the current RAA amendment process. Omar 2012/7/2 Nettlefold, Peter > Hello all,**** > > Following the Prague meeting, I just wanted to let you know that the GAC > has endorsed the WHOIS RT recommendations, and has also provided advice > on related industry oversight, contract development, and compliance issues > .**** > > For those who are interested, these issues are addressed in parts 2-5 of > the ?GAC advice to the Board? section of the attached Prague communique.** > ** > > I?m happy to discuss any of this, and look forward to seeing you all > again at a future meeting.**** > > Cheers,**** > > Peter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120702/6038303f/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Wed Jul 4 00:13:09 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:13:09 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] GAC endorses WHOIS RT recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A335772254D@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A3357722F62@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hi Omar and all, Following from Omar?s email on part 5 of the GAC advice, I thought it may be worth copying other relevant parts from the GAC?s Prague communique, so that all the text is in one place (sorry for not doing this earlier, but I kept having formatting problems with cutting and pasting from the PDF). I hope this makes things a bit easier. Cheers, Peter 2. ICANN?s role as an industry self-regulatory organisation a. The GAC understands that ICANN?s role includes: i. Overseeing the global DNS industry, and accrediting organisations to participate in that industry ii. Use of contracts to establish relationships with specific industry participants. iii. Overseeing and enforcing compliance with those contracts b. The GAC welcomes the briefing on ICANN?s role in overseeing the global DNS industry, and looks forward to further targeted discussions on this issue The GAC requests a written briefing from the Board that explains: ? The broad principles and particular mechanisms used by ICANN when overseeing the global DNS industry, including details of each of the self-regulatory mechanisms it has developed for this role (including contracts, code of conduct, and so on) ? Why ICANN has chosen to accredit and contract with some industry participants directly (for example, registries and registrars), and not others (for example, resellers)? ? How ICANN would resolve a situation where a reseller was identified as breaching an ICANN policy or contractual obligation? How would a breach involving a privacy/proxy provider be handled? It would be useful for these hypothetical circumstances to reflect any documented procedures, contractual obligations, and escalation measures. 3. ICANN?s role in the development of contracts a. The GAC welcomes the publication by ICANN of the draft new Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). It appears that this draft contains many changes from the current RAA, and has clearly been informed by a number of LEA/GAC recommendations. b. Several questions relating to privacy and data protection issues and the accountability of resellers remain outstanding. As discussed in the public meeting with the Board, the GAC stands ready to assist in these discussions. The GAC encourages the Board to provide written questions on any privacy and data retention matters to the GAC to facilitate an early response. c. The GAC emphasises the need for all ICANN contracts to be clear, unambiguous and enforceable, and welcomes ICANN?s efforts to enhance its compliance and termination tools as a part of the RAA negotiation process. The timeliness of this work is increasingly important. The GAC advises the Board ? that this work should be finalised as a matter of priority, and ? that all the necessary amendments and procedures should be in place in advance of the delegation of any new gTLDs. The GAC reiterates its interest and availability to assist with the resolution of these issues. 4. ICANN?s contract oversight and compliance role a. At the San Jose meeting, the GAC had asked the Board for an update on the status of the LEA/GAC recommendations that relate to due diligence by ICANN, and would appreciate a response. b. The importance of an effective industry oversight and compliance function will become more important with the upcoming introduction of new gTLDs, and an increase in the number of contracts that ICANN will need to oversee. With the accompanying likelihood of new entrants to the industry, it will be important for ICANN to ensure that its compliance policies and processes are clear, publicly known and consistently enforced. c. The GAC has provided the Board with examples of organisations that have separated their regulatory and operational responsibilities (see Annex 1). As previously advised at the San Jose meeting, the GAC considers that a principles-based approach to structuring ICANN?s compliance activities would support a robust and consistent oversight and compliance function. The GAC advises the Board ? to finalise improvements to its compliance and industry oversight functions before any new gTLDs are launched. From: Omar Kaminski [mailto:omar at kaminski.adv.br] Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 11:25 AM To: Nettlefold, Peter Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] GAC endorses WHOIS RT recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Glad to know, thanks for the update, Peter! 5. WHOIS Review Team a. The GAC welcomes the final report of the WHOIS Review Team, and notes that there are a number of common themes identified by the WHOIS Review Team?s recommendations, the LEA/GAC recommendations, and the GAC?s advice relating to ICANN?s industry oversight and compliance function. b. The GAC endorses the recommendations of the WHOIS Review Team, and will closely monitor the Board?s response and subsequent implementation activities. The GAC advises the Board * to take account of the WHOIS Review Team?s recommendations as part of the current RAA amendment process. Omar 2012/7/2 Nettlefold, Peter > Hello all, Following the Prague meeting, I just wanted to let you know that the GAC has endorsed the WHOIS RT recommendations, and has also provided advice on related industry oversight, contract development, and compliance issues. For those who are interested, these issues are addressed in parts 2-5 of the ?GAC advice to the Board? section of the attached Prague communique. I?m happy to discuss any of this, and look forward to seeing you all again at a future meeting. Cheers, Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120704/79885f7b/attachment.html From sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Wed Jul 4 08:03:25 2012 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (LEMON, Sharon) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 09:03:25 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Sharon Lemon change of role In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF70565EB343AAA@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -- Converted from text/plain format --> Hello Everyone, Thought I would let you know that I am moving on from Cyber to manage our International portfolio. After seven years, it is time for a change. So, it is unlikely our paths will cross anymore. It was great to get to know you all and understand a very small amount of what was going on. I will be replaced by Gerry Liddell, who is temporarily promoted elsewhere at the moment, so in the meantime Andy Archibald will be at the helm. Be Happy, Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Jul 4 15:34:24 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:34:24 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Quick update on Prague meeting Message-ID: <4FF46280.8040303@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, I wanted to share a quick update on the meeting in Prague. We were all thanked in the opening Welcome Session by Steve Crocker in his chairman's address. I was actually trying to slip out (to go to another meeting) when Steve started talking about our hard work (so I decided to stay) and he thanked all of us for our efforts, and the SSR Review Team too. It was particularly nice because, not only were over 1000 people present in the room, but my son Sam (age 14). He had a great time, and as you can imagine, jumped into the policy sessions :-). It was great to see James, Sarmad, Bill, Sharon (for a moment), Peter (only in passing) and Wilfried. The key issues at this meeting, as I saw them, were the New gTLDs, and questions about digital archery, batching, and other procedures (e.g., oppositions) to follow, and the gTLD Registrar negotiations with Law Enforcement on contractual issues. There were lots of newcomers to the booth area and handouts for .CLUB, .KIDS, .AFRICA, etc., and apparently the best attended meeting to date. The Hilton Prague did a great job with the conference. I had an unusual project for this meeting. With Google, we created the "Multistakeholders Storytelling Project." In the debate over ITU vs. Multistakeholder governance of the Net, we wanted to record stories of people, including why they participate in ICANN, and how it helps their countries and communities. I have to say that Dr. Sarmad was particularly eloquent (thank you!) in his video. We'll be posting shortly on YouTube (happy to send a link here if you are interested). But it was odd not to arrive early, and not to be in all-Sunday meetings with all of you. Missed everyone who did not attend -- it was a lonelier meeting without all of you. Best regards, Kathy Kathy --