March 2018 - ALAC-Announce - lists.icann.org

At-Large and GNSO Calls / Week of 02 - 06 April 2018
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 30, 2018

March 30, 2018

Dear All, Please find below the list of At-Large and GNSO WG meetings in which At-Large members are participants for the week of 02 - 06 April 2018. Monday 02 April 2018 None Tuesday 03 April 2018 None Wednesday 04 April 2018 14:00 UTC: (GNSO) New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top-Level https://community.icann.org/x/YASbAw 18:30 UTC: AFRALO Monthly Call https://community.icann.org/x/roPpB Thursday 05 April 2018 None Friday 06 April 2018 None Please confirm your dial-out requests or apology notice to: For GNSO calls: GNSO Secretariats: gnso-secs(a)icann.org For At-Large calls or ALAC: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org For CWG IANA Stewardship: Brenda.Brewer(a)icann.org For CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability: acct-staff(a)icann.org For CCWG-IG: desiree.cabrera(a)icann.org For WS2 Subgroup Topics or IOT calls : mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org Thank you! Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/facebook.com/icannatlar…> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/@ICANNAtLarge> [cid:image001.png@01D3C855.A1E01930]

1 0

ICANN News Alert -- Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 3 (MSR-3) for the Development of Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 30, 2018

March 30, 2018

[mage removed by sender. ICANN][icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ…> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-03-29-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> ________________________________ Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 3 (MSR-3) for the Development of Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone 29 March 2018 LOS ANGELES – 29 March 2018 - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (lCANN) today announced the release of the third version of the Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR-3[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>). This version is upwardly compatible with MSR-2 and adds three code points each to the repertoires of Han and Latin scripts. Under the Procedure to Develop and Maintain Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone with Respect to IDN Labels[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_resou…> [PDF, 72 KB] , the MSR is the starting point for the work by community based Generation Panels[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> which are developing the proposals for relevant scripts for the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>). The contents of MSR-3 and the detailed rationale behind its development are described in MSR-3-Overview and Rationale[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> [PDF, 242 KB]. The RZ-LGR is a mechanism for determining valid IDN top-level domain labels and their variant labels. MSR-3 covers the following 28 scripts: Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Ethiopic, Georgian, Greek, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Han, Hangul, Hebrew, Hiragana, Kannada, Katakana, Khmer, Lao, Latin, Malayalam, Myanmar, Oriya, Sinhala, Tamil, Telugu, Thaana, Tibetan, and Thai. For these scripts, MSR-3 contains 33,496 code points short-listed from 97,973 PVALID/CONTEXT code points of Unicode version 6.3. In addition to selecting their repertoire from within the MSR for developing the RZ-LGR proposals, Generation Panels will also evaluate whether any such code points are variant code points and if any rules are needed to further constrain the labels generated using these code points. The resulting RZ-LGR proposals by the Generation Panels will be released for public comment before they are reviewed by the Integration Panel for integration into the RZ-LGR. MSR-3 defers code points that are already encoded in later releases of Unicode. In addition, the Integration Panel monitors any scripts not included in the MSR for indications change in the MSR is warranted. Until such a change of the MSR, MSR-3 will be the foundation for any RZ-LGR versions developed. All future versions of the MSR and all versions of the RZ-LGR must retain full backwards compatibility. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.

1 0

ICANN News Alert -- Annual IANA Functions Audits Validate ICANN Systems Controls
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 30, 2018

March 30, 2018

[CANN][icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ…> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-03-29-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> ________________________________ Annual IANA Functions Audits Validate ICANN Systems Controls 29 March 2018 LOS ANGELES – 29 March 2018 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has completed audits of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) Registry Assignment and Maintenance Systems (RAMS) and the Root Zone Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) services provided as part of the IANA functions. International accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) conducted the audits for the period of 1 October 2016 through 30 November 2017. For the fifth consecutive year, a Service Organization Control (SOC) 2 audit of PTI's RAMS shows that the ICANN organization has the appropriate controls in place to ensure the security, availability, and integrity of IANA request processing. For the eighth consecutive year, SOC 3 certification has been achieved for the management of the DNSSEC root key signing key, which is the trust anchor of the domain name system. The SOC 3 certification demonstrates that effective security controls are maintained to manage the root key signing key. The certificate is publicly available at: http://iana.org/audits. SOC audits evaluate an organization's controls in relation to "trust services principles and criteria" and are managed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). In August of 2017, the ICANN org solicited proposals for an independent auditor to conduct future SOC audits. After careful consideration, RSM US LLP was selected to conduct these audits beginning 1 October 2017. "PwC has done a great job as our audit firm since 2010, and guided us as we established an audit culture within our organization. Industry best practices suggest periodically rotating auditors to gain a fresh external perspective, and we determined it was the right time to make the switch to ensure ongoing community confidence in our service delivery. We are grateful for the many years of service that PwC has provided and welcome the team from RSM," said Kim Davies, ICANN's Vice President of IANA. Kim Davies also serves as President of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), the affiliate of ICANN that provides the IANA functions. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.

1 0

Call for Comments: ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

Dear All, Please note the first draft ALAC Statement on ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ICA…> is ready for your review. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/vS28B. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on this draft. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function by this Friday, 30 March 2018 at 23:59 UTC. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don’t have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<http://www.twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [ignature_1075389385]

1 0

ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Requests DPA Guidance on Proposed Interim Model for GDPR Compliance
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

[CANN][icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ…> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-03-28-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> ________________________________ ICANN Requests DPA Guidance on Proposed Interim Model for GDPR Compliance 28 March 2018 LOS ANGELES – 28 March 2018 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") has requested[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> European data protection authorities (DPAs) provide specific guidance on the organization's Proposed Interim Compliance Model[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> [PDF, 922 KB] as it relates to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In letters to each of the 28 European member states' DPAs and the European Data Protection Supervisor, ICANN asks the authorities to "help ICANN and the domain name registries and registrars to maintain the global WHOIS in its current form, through either clarification of the GDPR, a moratorium on enforcement or other relevant actions, until a revised WHOIS policy that balances these critical public interest perspectives may be developed and implemented." Absent this specific guidance, the integrity of the global WHOIS system and the organization's ability to enforce WHOIS requirements after the GDPR becomes effective will be threatened. ICANN is concerned that continued ambiguity on the application of the GDPR to the global WHOIS may result in many domain name registries and registrars choosing not to publish or collect WHOIS out of fear that they will be subject to significant fines following actions brought against them by the European DPAs. ICANN has set out that its 2,500 domain name registries and registrars need clear guidance and a moratorium so that they will not have enforcement actions brought against them while they implement changes to comply with the GDPR. At the same time, governments world-wide, law enforcement authorities, and those fighting abuse on the Internet are deeply concerned that blocked access to the global WHOIS may significantly harm the public interest, by blocking access to critical information which allow them to enforce other laws and protect consumers, critical infrastructure and intellectual property rights. More information on ICANN's data protection/privacy activities is available here[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_dataprot…>. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.

1 0

New Public Comment: Draft Final Report of the NomCom2 Review
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

Dear All, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the Draft Final Report of the NomCom2 Review<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Dra…> has now gone live. Public comment will end on 07 May 2018 23:59 UTC. As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC submits Statements on Public Comment and advises on policy matters related to the interest of Internet users worldwide. Not just limited to the 15 ALAC members, members from the wider At-Large community are welcome to draft a Statement on behalf of the ALAC. If you are interested in drafting an ALAC Statement on this Public Comment, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. The wiki workspace for this public comment is https://community.icann.org/x/y4LpB. All pertinent resources can also be found there. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<http://www.twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [ignature_1694838152]

1 0

New Public Comment: Proposed Revisions to Bylaws Section 11 – Additional Voting Thresholds
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

Dear All, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the Proposed Revisions to Bylaws Section 11 – Additional Voting Thresholds<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=82412214> has now gone live. Public comment will end on 05 May 2018 23:59 UTC. As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC submits Statements on Public Comment and advises on policy matters related to the interest of Internet users worldwide. Not just limited to the 15 ALAC members, members from the wider At-Large community are welcome to draft a Statement on behalf of the ALAC. If you are interested in drafting an ALAC Statement on this Public Comment, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. The wiki workspace for this public comment is https://community.icann.org/x/toLpB. All pertinent resources can also be found there. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<http://www.twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [ignature_915080772]

1 0

KSK Rollover on today's ALAC Agenda
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Dear All, Please see the message below sent by Alan Greenberg that includes the information needed for the discussion on the KSK Rollover that will be held on today's ALAC call. This information is being sent via email due to the unavailability of an Adobe Connect Meeting Room. Kind regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [unknown.png] From: ALAC [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:16 PM To: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] KSK Rollover on today's ALAC Agenda Here is my last try at summarizing things. What is wrong or missing? ----------------- What I am hearing (extrapolated) is: * Our community understands the need to roll the KSK but is divided on which path to follow at this point. * We want an intense awareness campaign including targetting ISPs, Telcos, Major industries. Use RIRs where they can identify potential DNS providers. * Information packet we can send to our community (ALSes, Individual Members) to get them to prompt their local ISPs or others and which can be similarly used by other constituencies within ICANN. * A holistic review of the situation (including a risk assessment of alternatives) in time for further discussion at ICANN62, including the then current state of whatever data is available and forecast of Sentinal availability. * We would like to better understand under what conditions a rollover date change is possible to avoid doing it at the end of a week.

1 0

Fellowship on today's ALAC Agenda
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Dear All, Please see the message below sent by Alan Greenberg that includes the information needed for the discussion on the Fellowship Community Consultation that will be held on today's ALAC call. This information is being sent via email due to the unavailability of an Adobe Connect Meeting Room. Kind regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [unknown.png] From: ALAC [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:06 PM To: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] Fellowship on today's ALAC Agenda Attached and in the body of this message are the notes for today's discussion of the Fellowship on the ALAC Call. ----------------------------- ALAC Meeting - 27 March 2018 - Fellowship Questionnaire Program Goals and Vision 1. What does your group believe should be the objective of the Fellowship Program? How would the success of this objective be measured? Integration of "graduates" into the various constituent parts of ICANN as active participants in ICANN activities 2. The Fellowship Program was established to provide access to ICANN meetings to individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities. In your group's opinion, how effective is the Fellowship Program at fulfilling its current goal? It is moderately effective in getting people to know about ICANN. Although there have been a number of notable successes, it is more effective at raising awareness than in generating workers. 3. In your group's opinion, is this goal still a priority for ICANN, given the new bylaws? If not, what new goals would your group propose for the program? Yes, it must still be a goal but with a target of measurable success as measured by the AC/SOs. Assessment of Program Impact on your SO/AC group 4. Have Fellows contributed to the work of your group? If so, where do you think they have added the most value? What might be changed about the Fellowship Program to enhance participation of Fellows in your group? At-Large has had a number of great successes with Fellowship alumni. The greatest value has come from the relatively few who have chosen to devote time and energy to ICANN post-Fellowship. 5. Does your group make efforts to involve, educate, and/or inform Fellows about your work? If so, please describe these efforts. Yes, but it is rather haphazard. We engage at ICANN meetings, but there is no concerted effort to draw people into our activities. 6. How willing would your group (SO/AC/SG/C) be to participate and take ownership for selecting and developing fellows, including giving them assignments, assigning mentors, etc? We are willing to participate. Mentors are possible, but that would presume filtering candidates who have a particular interest in our areas. Selection Processes 7. Are you aware of the Fellowship selection process? What changes, if any, would you suggest for the selection process? Yes, we are willing. Returning Fellows should come with a specific AC/SO/Const in mind and these must be balanced over the organization. This shouldbe accompanied by the identification of coaches from the appropriate group. The effectiveness of fellows returning as mentors and coaches should be evaluated. Prospective fellows must be willing to take intro courses on ICANN Learn. If there are not suitable courses there that will provide the needed background, they should be created. It should be clear that this is not tourism, but a path towards active engagement. One of the problems may be the categories used in the selection process. At-Large fits best into "civil society" but we do not comfortably fit into the typical model of "civil society". And lastly, as long as we still have fellows at the public meeting asking questions why ICANN doing nothing to regulate dangerous content, we are clearly not getting the selection/preparation right. 8. An individual can be awarded a Fellowship up to three times. Do you suggest retaining or revising this number? Why? We would like to see a study of who (and with how many trips) actually becomes active in ICANN on an ongoing basis prior to addressing this. 9. For Policy Forum Meetings, currently only Fellowship Alums can apply. Do you support continuing with this approach? If not, what changes would you suggest? We support it IF there is data to demonstrate that these people participate in the policy activities and do so across the community. Program Size 10. Considering your responses to previous questions, would you suggest making the program larger, smaller, or maintaining the current size? 30 was a very effective group and At-Large supported increasing it. It may be that 60 was overreaching and there are not sufficient available resources (throughout the community) to integrate them. 11. If the program were to be reduced in size, what would your group deem as the priorities for the program with a smaller cohort? Migration of Fellows to active participation. This is too expensive a program to use it as purely dissemination of information about ICANN. Program Structure 12. When you interact with Fellows at an ICANN Meeting, do you find that they are sufficiently knowledgeable about ICANN? If not, what skills or areas of knowledge would you suggest increasing focus on for pre-Meeting preparation? It depends on whether they are new or have been to prior meetings. 13. Do you think that Fellows spend sufficient time in working sessions with your group during the course of an ICANN meeting? If not, what would changes would your group propose? No, but it would be good to have us submit a list of sessions that would prove useful to them. 14. Do you feel that you have enough time to engage with Fellows at an ICANN meeting? Sadly, no. Information Available on Program 15. Is the information currently available clear and sufficient for your community members to understand the Fellowship Program? If not, which elements could be improved and how? A presentation either via teleconference or at an ICANN meeting would be a good start. 16. Are your community members aware of the differences between the Fellowship and NextGen@ICANN Programs? If not, please state what type of clarification would be useful. Yes, I believe so. General Questions 17. The Fellowship Program seeks to engage participants who will go on to participate actively in the ICANN community. What skills, attributes and backgrounds have provided the most successful and active participation in your SO/AC/SG/C? What skillsets and backgrounds would your group see as desirable for candidates for the Fellowship Program? At-Large focuses on issues that impact end-users. A passionate consideration for end-users, those without the knowledge of ICANN, is the key. 18. With which elements of the Fellowship Program is your group most satisfied? What changes or improvements would your group most want to see implemented to the program? We are most satisfied with the relatively small number of people who have gone on to make At-Large their home and productively work with us. We would like to see more! 19. Do you have any other questions or comments about the Fellowship Program?

1 0

FW: [ALAC] GDPR on today's ALAC Agenda
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Dear All, Please see the message below sent by Alan Greenberg that includes the information needed for the discussion on GDPR that will be held on today's ALAC call. This information is being sent via email due to the unavailability of an Adobe Connect Meeting Room. Kind regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [unknown.png] From: ALAC [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:50 AM To: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] GDPR on today's ALAC Agenda Attached and in the body of this message are the notes for today's discussion of GDPR on the ALAC Call. ----------------------------- ALAC Meeting - 27 March 2018 - GDPR Discussion The ALAC and At-Large are divided on whether the proposed Interim Model meets the requirements of the GDPR and specifically whether the rationales for collecting various data items are specified in sufficient detail and are sufficiently compelling. There are also differing views on whether the transport of data to Registries in compliance with "thick WHOIS" rules is GDPR compliant. In the absence of concerns over privacy, ICANN has previously determined that the thick WHOIS model is the one that should be used and we should not re-litigate that here. We have similarly decided that single points of failure must be avoided and all data must be escrowed in case of any of multiple forms of failure. All data items have proven useful in the past (that was the result of ICANN's earlier work). Whether it can be justified in the current situation is the question. All of these issues will need to be judged by DPAs and to the extent that they make clear statements, we will have to abide by them. The ALAC has the responsibility to look at all issues from and end-user perspective. We also have concerns for registrant issues, but where they differ we support users. 1. Must registrars continue to collect the contact details for administrative and technical contacts and transmit them to the registry and escrow provider? 2. Should anonymized e-mail addresses should be substituted for the e-mail addresses for registrant, administrative, and technical contacts in public WHOIS? 3. Should registries and registries be permitted to optionally apply the model on a global basis? 4. Should the model apply to contact details supplied by registrants who are legal persons? 5. Which elements of WHOIS data should be published in public WHOIS while an accreditation program for layered/tiered access is being developed? 6. How many levels should the "tiered" access mechanism support? 7. Bulk access - should it be allowed?

1 0