January 2011 - Rt4-whois - lists.icann.org

Can everyone volunteer?
by Kathy Kleiman Jan. 7, 2011

Jan. 7, 2011

Hi All, Happy New Year again! Bill has inspired me - there are issues we should be looking at now, in preparation for London, rather than waiting for the meeting. Emily and I selected key areas from the Agenda that would benefit from advanced planning. They are substantive and speaker agenda items (all speakers have asked for questions on which they can prepare their presentations). Would everyone please select one item below (two, if you feel inspired)? Please take a look at whatever background materials you deem appropriate, and prepare a draft to share with the list. Nothing fancy needed: paragraphs, bullet points, rough ideas. Whatever you provide will give us something to work from - a rough draft. I propose 1/11 as the deadline - and then a day or two to comment as a group (and then send on to the speakers). Again, rough draft for discussion purposes is the goal.... a starting point to our discussion in London! Here's the list of subjects. Please let me and Emily know (on or off list) what you would like to volunteer for. Tx you! I. Definitions - a working set of definitions, background, scope (see initial ideas in Agenda): 1. A. Producers of Whois Data _____________ (Volunteer(s)) 2. B. Law Enforcement _____________ (Volunteer(s)) 3. C. Consumers and Consumer Trust _____________ (Volunteer(s)) 4. D. Applicable laws _____________ (Volunteer(s)) II. Questions - for Speakers (to help them organize their presentations to our needs): 5. A. Questions for ICANN Staff on Compliance: James Bladel and _____________ (additional volunteer?) 6. B. Questions for ICANN Staff on Whois Policy & History: _____________ (Volunteer(s)) 7. C. Questions for SOCA Speaker 8. D. Questions for Article 29 Speaker (still "invited," but not yet RSVPed) _____________ (Volunteer(s)) 9. E. Questions for Department of Commerce/Lawrence Strickling III. Schedule of Upcoming Meetings Volunteers: Kathy, Emily, Bill (Bill, hope you don't mind my volunteering you). IV. Outreach & Action Plan: Volunteers: Emily, Kathy, _____________ (Volunteer(s)) Please let Emily and me know your choice(s) -- did we miss anything? Best and tx! Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG, The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846| www.pir.org <http://www.pir.org> | Find us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org> | .ORG Blog <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> | Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> | Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

5 7

Summary of decisions to date
by Emily Taylor Jan. 6, 2011

Jan. 6, 2011

Hi everyone For the purposes of transparency to the community, and to assist team members in keeping track of what we have decided, I asked Alice to compile a list of Key Decisions, which I've put up on the Wiki. https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Summary+of+key+decisions+to… Some of the links to other documents are broken right now - can someone take a look at them. Alice noted that our adopted rules about expectations of the Chair and Vice Chair were due to be put up, but this doesn't seem to have been done. Again, can I ask for a volunteer to look into this. Please note that in our first call, we agreed a deadline to finish the report by 30 November 2011. In the informal meeting at Cartagena, it was also agreed that "Efforts should be made on the list to advance the scope of work draft https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Scope+of+Whois+Review+Team into a tangible proposal ready for consideration at the first face-to-face meeting in London." Kind regards 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

2 2

Travel support and expense reimbursement
by Olof Nordling Jan. 6, 2011

Jan. 6, 2011

Dear all, With our London meeting coming up, I am sure you will find the attached expense reimbursement form of interest, as well as some practical hints about how to use it: After the meeting, please list your expenses on this form (lodging, meals, travel - unless already covered), attach scanned copies of the receipts and mail to accountspayable(a)icann.org<mailto:accountspayable@icann.org> (please also copy Alice and me) while clearly stating in the mail your bank account details for the transfer. Please note on the form that you can change the "disbursement currency" to the currency of your choice - and also that there is a link on the form to a currency conversion website to make life a little easier. Happy to answer any questions you may have on this, of course. For more about ICANN's travel support rules, please see the latest version at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guidelin… . Very best regards - wishing you safe travels and a really good 2011! Olof

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] London Meeting -- staff attendance - and drafting questions
by James M. Bladel Jan. 5, 2011

Jan. 5, 2011

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
by James M. Bladel Jan. 5, 2011

Jan. 5, 2011

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
by James M. Bladel Jan. 5, 2011

Jan. 5, 2011

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Jan. 5, 2011

Jan. 5, 2011

3 3

Scope of Work
by Emily Taylor Jan. 4, 2011

Jan. 4, 2011

Hi all I'm belatedly replying to Kathy's thread, and her updates on the Scope document following the Cartagena meeting. Bearing in mind that we should be aiming to communicate our scope of work to both ICANN insiders and those not so familiar with the context of these review teams, I have amended the draft scope to add in context from the AoC, including quoting the fact that the team is constituted under the AoC, the relevant paragraph (9.3.1) and other overarching principles contained within the AoC relating to ICANN's obligations to make policy in the public interest and "not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders" (para 4). One of the questions that I have in approaching our work, which I hope we will discuss in London, is to what extent should we be looking at the policy process which has led to the current WHOIS policy - because it seems to me that these overarching principles about public interest vs interests of particular stakeholders is in part answered by a look at (1) where does responsibility for Whois policy formation sit within the ICANN organisation (2) how do the relevant strands (gNSO, GAC, SSAC) that we see referenced in the background materials provided by staff fit together, and what role does the board play and (3) with regard to WHOIS policy, what mechanisms/processes are in place to ensure that the end result is made in the public interest? Please take a look at the draft Scope. I tried to save the changes, and I think they are there, but the screen went a bit funny, so for completeness, here is a copy of the complete scope as amended by me today (see below). Best regards Emily --------------------- The WHOIS Review Team (WRT) has been constituted under the Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers dated 30 September 2009 (AoC). Under paragraph 9.3.1 of the AoC, ICANN commits to organising "a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." Accordingly, the Scope of the Whois Review Team is to assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its implementation: is effective, meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and promotes consumer trust. The WRT will identify and document ICANN’s existing WHOIS policy. The WRT will identify and document ICANN's implementation of its Whois Policy. It will define and identify law enforcement, and the term "legitimate needs of law enforcement." It will define consumer trust and analyse what factors promote consumer trust in the context of the Whois. It will identify the areas, if any, in which the interests above may be in conflict with each other. It will assess applicable laws and analyze issues possibly including: - contractual obligations vs. national law obligations - differing global laws and ICANN obligations It will review the extent to which ICANN’s existing WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective in meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust. This assessment will include an evidence-based approach, and seek to identify good practice in other areas of the domain space (as a benchmarking tool). The assessment will keep in mind overarching principles set out in the AoC in relation to ICANN's policy, ie that "decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent" (paragraph 3(a)) "promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace" (paragraph 3(c)), and that the outcomes of ICANN's private coordinating process should "reflect the public interest...and not just the interests of a particular set of stakeholders" (paragraph 4). These principles set the context for the reviews (of which the WRT is one) performed under the AoC. The WRT will undertake an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information, and what impact such requirement have on the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promoting consumer trust. 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

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Jan. 4, 2011

Jan. 4, 2011

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
by James M. Bladel Jan. 3, 2011

Jan. 3, 2011

1 0