November 2010 - Rt4-whois - lists.icann.org

Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
by sharon.lemon＠soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -- Converted from text/plain format --> I would be very interested in having a presentation on previous Whois Reviews, their findings, outcomes, learning points etc., Sharon Sharon Lemon OBE. Deputy Director e-Crime, Crime Techniques, Prevention and Alerts | Serious Organised Crime Agency | PO BOX 8000 | London | SE11 5EN | Tel: +44 (0)20 7238 8583 | Mobile: +44 (0)7768 290902 | Email: sharon.lemon(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Get Safe Online Week 2010 runs from 15th-19th November. Visit the website to learn more or follow us on twitter @GetSafeOnline Get Safe Online is a joint initiative between the Government, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and public and private sector sponsors from the worlds of technology, communication, retail and finance to raise awareness of internet security, and help individuals and smaller businesses in the UK to use the internet confidently and safely. -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: 12 November 2010 19:32 To: Kim G. von Arx Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps Kim, I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions". As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes. Regards, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM > To: Smith, Bill > Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > > Hi Bill: > > I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but > I submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any > policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to > eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it > will be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly > agree with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate > interests which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public > consultation to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. > However, this raises three major problems: > > 1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly > significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review > and development we had a total of 3 public consultations with > extensive background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, > we had various public fora across the country to discuss and collect > further information from our stakeholders. > > 2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there > comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to > electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the > outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us > have no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the > policies, regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of > those services. > > 3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge > amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. > Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the > enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community > only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any > understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of > this new TLD initiative. > > Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who > our stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each. > > Kim > > > > > On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote: > > > Hi Kim, > > > > I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping > > you > have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for > us to invite input. > > > > However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and > consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and > concerns of one group against the other. > > > > As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some > consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to > WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach > (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants > will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. > dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to > enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, > phishing, malware, and the like). > > > > In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and > restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, > regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, > that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain > pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same > time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS. > > > > Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, > for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In > my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals > to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I > believe we need a different approach for a way forward. > > > > Regards, > > > > Bill > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] > >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM > >> To: Smith, Bill > >> Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >> > >> Hi Bill: > >> > >> I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do > >> I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to > >> the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we > >> had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. > >> > >> I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but > >> I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong > >> advocates > so > >> far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and > >> registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three > groups > >> will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep > >> each broad enough. > >> > >> In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various > >> perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect > that > >> we will have various other people speak at our face to face > >> meetings > to > >> provide their respective views. > >> > >> Kim > >> > >> > >> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote: > >> > >>> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation > regarding > >> where concerns originate from? I think not. > >>> > >>> Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. > >> Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need > for > >> anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to > >> phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to > protect > >> their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such > >> scenarios. > >>> > >>> I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a > >> preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > >> bounces(a)icann.org] > >>>> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx > >>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM > >>>> To: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at > >>>> Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >>>> > >>>> Hi Wilfried: > >>>> > >>>> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark > >> owners, > >>>> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect > >> to, > >>>> e.g., copyright. > >>>> > >>>> Kim > >>>> > >>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Kim, Team! > >>>>> > >>>>> Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Emily et al: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of > the > >>>> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we > >>>> invite someone from the staff to cover this point? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation > >>>>> > >>>>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic > >>>> would > >>>>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for > the > >>>> Sunday > >>>>> get-together. > >>>>> > >>>>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or > >>>> documents. > >>>>> > >>>>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will > >>>>>> have > >>>> started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face > >>>> to > >> face > >>>> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke > >>>> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well > >>>> as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. > >>>> I > >> would > >>>> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the > >>>> rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. > >>>> With respect > to > >>>> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to > face > >>>> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the > >>>> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive > work > >> for > >>>> the remaining 1.5 days. > >>>>> > >>>>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to > propose > >>>> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place > >>>> during > >> our > >>>> mandate > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize > >> our > >>>> face to face time as much as possible. > >>>>> > >>>>> OK for me. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: > >>>>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees > >>>>>>> - the Board > >>>>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison > >>>>>>> with > >> the > >>>> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask > >> them > >>>> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute > >>>> to > >> our > >>>> task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward > by > >>>> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those > meetings > >>>> and help lead the discussions? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> agreed > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Our next call > >>>>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global > >> perspective > >>>>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> agreed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> - > -- > >> -- > >>>> ---- > >>>>> > >>>>> Wilfried > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Rt4-whois mailing list > >>>> Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Rt4-whois mailing list > >>> Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > =0A_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 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. 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(a)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.

11 18

Re: [Rt4-whois] Request for ICANN WHOIS resources
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 29, 2010

Nov. 29, 2010

1 0

: Request for ICANN WHOIS resources
by Olivier ITEANU Nov. 26, 2010

Nov. 26, 2010

------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: Olivier ITEANU <oiteanu(a)iteanu.com> To: denise.michel(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Request for ICANN WHOIS resources Date sent: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:43:37 +0100 Denise Thank you, that's very clear. It means that we should look at both contracts. Olivier -------------------------------------------------- On 24 Nov 2010 at 10:11, Denise Michel wrote: Hello, Olivier. Good question. The ICANN Board approved the revisions to the RAA in 21 May 2009. The revised (or "new form") RAA applies to all new registrars, registrars that renew after 21 May 2009, and all registrars that voluntarily adopt the new contract prior to their renewal date. I'll get the latest #s on adoption for the Team (or perhaps Liz Gasster has the latest to share?). Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Olivier ITEANU <oiteanu(a)iteanu.com> wrote: Thank you Denise, that's very useful. I see that there are two registrar accreditation agreeements (RAA) one dated of May 2011 (?). This RAA is a very important document for our RT. Does it mean that all the registrars are now under this last contract or the new accredited registrars only ? For us, does it mean that we have to work on both documents ? thank you for your help. Olivier On 23 Nov 2010 at 14:17, Denise Michel wrote: > Dear Team members: > > WHOIS Background Information has been posted on the wiki: > <https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Background+Info rmation> > > It includes brief explanations and links to information organized by > the topics listed below. With over a decade's worth of ICANN Whois > history to draw from, Liz Gasster, Pam Little and I tried to provide > you with key resources without overwhelming you. As I noted > previously, we are expecting to fine tune and add to this wiki page, > based on Team members' needs. Comments are encouraged! > > Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. > > Regards, > Denise > > PS. If you need assistance accessing or using the wiki, please > contact Alice off-list. > > Denise Michel > ICANN > Advisor to the President > denise.michel(a)icann.org > +1.408.429.3072 mobile > +1.310.578.8632 direct > > > 1. Background > > 2. Selected Whois Accuracy Work by Compliance > > 3. Overview of Selected Whois Policy Activity (historical) > > 4. Overview of Current Whois Policy Activity > > 5. IANA and Whois > > 6. Two Whois-related sessions in Cartagena > > 7. Additional Information > > Annex A -- Links to Other Reports and References > > Annex B -- Status of GNSO Council-requested WHOIS studies - November 2010 Update > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > > Dear Team members, > > > > I would be happy to provide links for background information and reference. I will coordinate with relevant ICANN staff and organize and post them on the wiki. That way, we can easily add to them as Team members identify additional needs. > > > > Regards, > > Denise > > > > Denise Michel > > ICANN > > Advisor to the President > > denise.michel(a)icann.org > > +1.408.429.3072 mobile > > +1.310.578.8632 direct > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Emily Taylor <emily.taylor(a)etlaw.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >> Dear all > >> Bearing in mind Sharon's request and Lutz's response (below), I would like to ask Denise Michel of the ICANN staff to post materials relating to ICANN's WHOIS policy on the Wiki for the benefit of the team. I'm aware that the WHOIS policy development process has been going on for some time, and in a number of communities within ICANN. There are also enforcement aspects too. > >> Being ICANN (no offence!), there are likely to be a very large number of documents, so it would be of great assistance if the materials could be clearly signposted under headings, and if possible a short summary of the state of play for members of the Team who are pushed for time. > >> In my view, having these background materials will be a useful reference point, but not an alternative to having Denise or one of her colleagues join us in person at the London meeting to give us a presentation on key aspects of ICANN's WHOIS policy. > >> Kind regards, and thanks in advance > >> Emily > >> > >> > >> On 18 Nov 2010, at 17:17, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: > >> > >> * <sharon.lemon(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> wrote: > >> > >> I would be very interested in having a presentation on previous Whois > >> > >> Reviews, their findings, outcomes, learning points etc., > >> > >> http://www.icann.org/en/gnso/whois-tf/report-19feb03.htm > >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/prelim-tf-rpt- 18jan06.htm > >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services- final- tf-report-12mar07.htm > >> http://www.icann.org/processes/revised-draft-whois-procedure- 18dec07.pdf > >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis- group- report-to-council-26aug08.pdf > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > >> > >> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > >> telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 > >> emily.taylor(a)etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu@iteanu.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- I T E A N U Société d'Avocats - Law Firm 164, rue du Faubourg Saint-Honore 75008 PARIS Tel. + 33 (0)1 42 56 90 00 Fax + 33 (0)1 42 56 90 02 e-mail: contact(a)iteanu.com - www.iteanu.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------- End of forwarded message ------- Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu@iteanu.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- I T E A N U Société d'Avocats - Law Firm 164, rue du Faubourg Saint-Honore 75008 PARIS Tel. + 33 (0)1 42 56 90 00 Fax + 33 (0)1 42 56 90 02 e-mail: contact(a)iteanu.com - www.iteanu.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------

1 0

article 29 information
by Olof Nordling Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Dear all, For information about art 29 members etc, see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/workinggroup/index_en.htm Best regards Olof

1 0

Conflic of interest material
by Alice Jansen Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Dear James, Olivier and Wilfried, Please find attached the required CoI material. Thanks, Best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen(a)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

1 0

WHOIS - Draft Agenda - 24 Nov 2010
by Alice Jansen Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Dear Review Team Members, Please be kindly reminded that a conference call is scheduled for tomorrow - Wednesday, 24 November - at 14.00 UTC. Please find attached a draft agenda for your convenience. Note that this is also available on your wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+04+-+24+Nov+2010 Thanks, Best regards Alice

3 3

Reminder - WHOIS call today at 14.00 UTC
by Alice Jansen Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Dear Review Team Members, As you know, a conference call is scheduled for today at 14:00 UTC. For your convenience, please find the agenda and dial-in details attached. Password required: 27318 followed by # With a view to enhancing the sound quality of the call, we would be very grateful if you could please mute your lines whenever silent by dialing *6. To unmute, please press *7 Please be kindly reminded to state your name when speaking and to join the Adobe room http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Thank you, Very best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen(a)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

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS - Draft Agenda - 24 Nov 2010
by sharon.lemon＠soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Nov. 23, 2010

Nov. 23, 2010

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Dear All, I am afraid that I cannot make this call, I was hoping to be able to juggle appointments, but have been unable. I will read the notes as soon as they are published. Of particular interest to me is whether the London conference is going ahead, if I am hosting (which will be a pleasure) and on what dates. I hope the call goes well and am really looking forward to meeting with you all. Sharon Sharon Lemon OBE. Deputy Director, e-Crime & Crime Techniques| Serious Organised Crime Agency | PO BOX 8000 | London | SE11 5EN | Tel: +44 (0)20 7238 8583 | Mobile: +44 (0)7768 290902 | Email: sharon.lemon(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: 23 November 2010 11:06 To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS - Draft Agenda - 24 Nov 2010 Dear Review Team Members, Please be kindly reminded that a conference call is scheduled for tomorrow - Wednesday, 24 November - at 14.00 UTC. Please find attached a draft agenda for your convenience. Note that this is also available on your wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+04+-+24+Nov+2010 Thanks, Best regards Alice This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. 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. 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(a)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.

1 0

Doodle - London - Reminder
by Alice Jansen Nov. 19, 2010

Nov. 19, 2010

Dear Review Team Members, Please be kindly reminded to complete the London doodle poll http://doodle.com/7br6htxzvmtdgrva. We would be very grateful if you could please provide us with your availabilities by Monday, 22 November. Thanks, Kind regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen(a)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

1 0

Planning our next steps
by Emily Taylor Nov. 18, 2010

Nov. 18, 2010

Dear All Thanks for all your contributions to the list over the past day or so. Scope and Draft Report outline I have uploaded the draft Scope and Report outline documents which our small group presented to the Team in our last call. During our discussions we agreed that it is more appropriate for all Team members to input into these drafts. Kathy suggested that we break into small groups and review the documents. However, I'm not sure that we agreed the composition of the small groups (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this!!), so in the meantime, please can everyone comment individually. If we're unable to sign them off at our next call, then we'll go for the small groups approach. Using the Wiki Personally, I've never used a Wiki in this way before, and I like it! This is going to make our life much easier as we work on shared documents. Meetings Sharon has raised the issue of planning ahead, and her point is well made. Many of the team have huge demands on their diary, and I would like to make some straw man proposals as follows: Cartagena We have agreed to a 120 minute meeting, with remote participation, and encourage those present in Cartagena to spend time getting to know each other. As I will not be present in Cartagena, I would like Kathy as Vice Chair to run that session please. London Please would the staff run a doodle on London meeting dates. Bill has proposed 18-20th as a starting point. I propose that we have a day and a half for our substantive session. We should aim to arrive the night before for an informal dinner, and social session. I would also like to include a couple of speaking slots plus Q&A from external stakeholders. I suggest the following items to be covered at our first full meeting, in London - Review stakeholder identification work (or start it if it hasn't been done) - this can include the questions raised on our last call, like "what is meant by law enforcement, or consumer trust" from a global perspective. - Run a brainstorming session on the legitimate interests of each stakeholder group. - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? - Reviewing our Scope, what don't we know, and what information do we need? How do we get it, and do we need independent assistance? - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work. I'd also like to try and agree a work schedule and allocate some roles/small groups on particular issues. I think it would work best if we identify someone within the team who would be willing to draw up a straw man GANTT or similar rather than "blue sky". While we are in Europe, and (I hope) at Sharon's premises, perhaps we could invite a representative of European law enforcement, and a data protection authority (eg Art 29 group) as we discussed on our last call, to give us their views on what their Whois needs are. So, we could aim for 2 presentations plus Q&A sessions, to help inform ourselves. Please can I have your thoughts on this, and any suggestions for speakers. Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? Budget In preparation for our next call, please can we all give some thought to the London agenda, and particularly whether or not this group will need to commission outside research, as the ATRT has done. If so, then we need to give the Board a heads up as soon as possible, and prepare a revised budget. Bill has kindly posted the budget up on the Wiki, so take a look in preparation for our next call. Chair and staff I see part of the Chair's role to liaise with staff on behalf of this Team, if any of you have special requests or issues. This is not to block your direct contact with staff, but to offer myself as a resource to you if you feel that would be helpful. Getting to know you I would really appreciate having a call with each of you over the coming weeks, so get to know you a bit, understand your background beyond what's up there on the site, your views on what this Team should be covering, and understand which areas you feel you can particularly contribute to our achieving our objectives. Please can I ask the staff to set up half hour calls with me and each of you. Alice - I'll let you have my availability separately. Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on: - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. Please let me have your thoughts on these proposals, and I look forward to our next call. Best, Emily 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor(a)etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk

6 23