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

confcall 12 Oct - Note Pod Content from WHOIS-Review
by Alice Jansen Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, For your convenience, please find enclosed the note pod content of your call held on 12 October. Kindly note that these are draft notes and that Staff will create a preliminary report. Please be kindly reminded that conference call material is posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+22+-+12+October+2011 Thanks, Kind regards Alice 1.Roll-call and apologies 2.Adoption of agenda 3.Adoption of preliminary reports * 14 September – conference call * 20-21 September – Marina del Rey face-to--face meeting 4.Chapter penholders: status report 5.User Insight questionnaire: status report 6.Draft report: exchange of views on most recent version (v2 - 10 Oct) 7.Action items: Members report progress made to date 8.Dakar meeting: arrival date, availability to participate in Saturday meeting, use of time etc 9.A.O.B PARTICIPANTS Emily Taylor, Lutz Donnehacke, Lynn Goodendorf, Seth Reiss, James Bladel, Susan Kawaguchi, Kathy Kleiman, Denise Michel, Olof Nordling, Alice Jansen APOLOGIES Omar Kaminski, Michael Yakushev, Sharon Lemon, Kim Von Arx NOTES 1. OK 2. Agenda adopted 3. Preliminary report 14 Sept adopted - Preliminary report MdR 4. Chapter penholders report: (BS) first draft on executive summary - shared it with (SL). (JB) making progress - timelime prior to Dakar by next week - (ET) amendments to implementations section. (SL) circulated note - incorporate into section. 5.User insight report - progressing with online surveys, US completed, 9 other countries in progress. On track to finish the online survey this Friday - planning to deliver report and findings on Oct 21 - (consistent with contract provisions). (LG) had a confcall with US - went over final chances, incorporated a number of suggestions (SH's etc). Some suggestions were not feasible for an online survey, required more of a face-to-face interface. (LG) will request final version - to email project manager. Language interpreters working with them to make sure that examples, phrasing translate appropriately. This study will consolidate our overall report. 6. central repository - tighten up language, cut down number of words, decide whether keep some text, annex it or delete it. Once confirmation received on chapters, need one editor to work on wordsmithing (consistent terms, reference) clean document. Not alter content but make it read well. Susan confused : what recommendations are we going to make. Agreement? Sections upon which don't agree? Difficult to interact without stepping on toes. Make clear what has been done (version control task). To determine editor of document in Dakar. (AJ) to group recommendations upon which we have team agreement. We also need to answer questions set in scope. Look at consumer trust results in anticipation of Dakar. 7. Use (AJ)'s reminder as reference point in anticipation of Dakar. Tick community notification. (AJ) to circulate the letter to the team. Action list is our prompt for the next few days 8. hotel reservation numbers? Saturday time for Members to refine their drafts - drafting collaboration. (ET) and (KK) to work hand in hand on agenda. Closing remarks: consult your action items - work on it before Dakar - chance of success in Dakar (lot of time together!), great progress in MdR (agreeing recommendations, keep privacy/proxy dialogue going.

4 3

REMINDER - Call today @ 21:00 UTC
by Alice Jansen Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Your next conference call is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 12 October 2011** 21:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Policy+Review+Te… PASSWORD: 27318 followed by # Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+22+-+12+October+2011 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(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@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

5 4

Sharon's paper (was Re: REMINDER - Call today @ 21:00 UTC)
by Emily Taylor Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Hi Sharon Thank you very much for circulating your paper. I enjoyed reading it, and think that you have got the tone exactly right. There are a couple of details which are slightly inaccurate. The main one is that the WHOIS is not part of domain name resolution (your first diagram). It's a separate service, for looking up the contact details. So, when you type in www.icann.org, your ISP will (in theory - you're absolutely right about caching, and also many ISPs are part of exchange points) query the root data base (the IANA, managed by ICANN) and say "hey, know anything about icann.org". The reply from the root, is "I don't know about the icann bit, but .org is managed by Afilias. They're here". You go to Afilias, ask the same question and they say, here's the IP address. Love the Who's WHO of domain registration. Although James may object to being depicted as a little Granny, I think it suits perfectly ;-) On page 3, I'm not sure what you're meaning by "or registrants opt out". Opt out in the WHOIS context is a bit of a term of art, meaning that they elect not to have their contact details showing (for example it's the norm in European ccTLDs to offer a registrant opt out). If you're talking about registrants using their own nameservers, I think that's quite a marginal case, so don't think we need to go into it in this over view. If you would be willing, I'd like to add my diagram (still in the planning stage) about the WHOIS lifecycle , plus a few words on WHOIS data, into this section which I think is very strong. Thanks again, Emily On 12 October 2011 19:52, LEMON, Sharon <sharon.lemon(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>wrote: > ** > > *NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED * > Dear All, > > It is very unlikely that I will be able to make the call tonight. Sorry. > > I have been working on my actions from our MdR meeting > > 1. I have prepared a simple explanation of Whois, which is attached, and > Seth has given some feedback which I will incorporate if appropriate. I > have heard nothing from anyone else. - which is a bit disappointing as I > need feedback to make it a worthwhile document, and it took a lot of time > and effort. > > 2. I am due to give feedback on Bill's explanation of Whois, which I only > received a couple of hours ago, so haven't been able to give any detailed > attention to yet. I will do as soon as I can. > > 3. Definitions: I haven't been in contact with any of the subteam given > this action yet, but am happy to start an email chain around this, unless > anyone else wants to start the work. I know Michael came up with some very > useful suggestions at our MdR meeting - so if he could kick start this it > would be useful - otherwise I will. > > You will know that I have difficulty accessing a lot of our messages due to > our security settings, but if Alice could circulate a list of decisions and > actions as a result of tonight's call, that would be great. > > I hope you are all well, > > Sharon > > > > Sharon LEMON OBE > Deputy Director > Cyber and Forensics > Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) > 07768 290902 > 0207 855 2800 > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Alice Jansen > *Sent:* 12 October 2011 11:52 > *To:* rt4-whois(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call today @ 21:00 UTC > > Dear Review Team Members, > > Your next conference call is scheduled for: > > > ***Wednesday, 12 October **201**1***** > > *21:00 UTC* > > *Please check your local time at*: * > http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Policy+Review+Te… > * > * > * > * > * > PASSWORD: *27318 **followed by **# * > * > * > *Agenda: * > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+22+-+12+October+2011 > > *Adobe room**: **http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/*<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/* <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(a)icann.org* <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 > > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois(a)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(a)emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Reviewing proxy/privacy ideas [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by Kathy Kleiman Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Hi Peter, Emily and All, I have been giving this a lot of thought too. I have also been doing some research, and although I have been deeply embedded in the proxy/privacy issue for some time, there is still so much I don't know! Here are some of my thoughts: 1) I think you are right in dividing privacy from proxy from privacy registrations. As you wrote, and as Emily has written below in her recent email, proxy and privacy services (although spoken in the same breath) are different. I think our WRT Report can play an important role in laying out the differences, and sharing why, to us, these differences result in very clear and differing obligations and responsibilities. 2) I don't think you restrict privacy services to natural persons. As we have discussed in our meetings, there are many political organizations, religious groups and even commercial companies that claim privacy rights, and have legitimate reasons for not wanting to disclose a physical address. What I do think we can encourage the ICANN Community to develop is a series of guidelines for appropriate disclosure of the underlying data to law enforcement and others (called "Reveal" in ICANN parlance). (I also think the ICANN Community can develop a series of guidelines for appropriate practices for passing on information to the registrant at his/her/its address or email to notify them of all legal proceedings, inquiries to purchase the domain name, etc. -- this might defuse a lot of the existing tensions ("Relay" in ICANN parlance). 3) I do like the idea of best practices for privacy providers. 4) After great thought, and debate with several people on the Team (tx you!), I agree with you about proxy providers. I think your #7 is probably right: that "ICANN should claify that the full rights and responsibilities of a registrant accrue to the entity identified as the registrant." There does not seem to be any other way to do it. 5) An additional point: Education. perhaps we can use our recommendations to encourage clearer education of registrants, the ICANN Community, and the greater Law Enforcement, Commercial and other Communities. We can lay out the difference of proxy and privacy providers, and ways the choice of privacy or proxy might impact the registrants, and parties seeking the registrant. 6) One more additional point: Tiered Access. I don't know if we should get into this, but the Whois protocol can be modernized and updated to include levels of access for data -- e.g., privacy of addresses and telephone numbers -- and then provide access to those who a) identify themselves, and b) meet the criteria for access, e.g., law enforcement. In this case, the Whois information is held by registrar and registries, and thus much closer to ICANN. It is also far cheaper for registrants (who are currently paying more for their privacy services per year than their domain name, in many cases). Finally, it open future options for the registries and registrars to manage access to the data -- perhaps pursuant to rules ICANN might someday create. The current Whois protocol can't provide this service, but others can (Restful DNS, etc). Perhaps a win-win? Best and tx for all of your leadership in this area, Peter! Kathy << From Emily: Hi Peter > > Thanks for reviving this discussion. > > I've been mulling over privacy proxy recommendations, that would be > suitable and not pre-empt the findings of studies. > > I think that a route might be to go back to the first principles in > the contract. > > 1. Proxies are the registrant. Therefore they take the heat if > there's any problem with the domain name, and the onus/responsibility > is on them to prove that there is another party who should be blamed > in a timely way. > > 2. Privacy registrations - on the face of it, these are inaccurate, > and therefore the domain becomes subject to cancellation if the true > registration details are not revealed in a timely manner. > > So, the policies are there, the contractual powers are there. There > needs to be more responsiveness on the part of registrars in > cancelling/amending/revealing underlying details where there's a problem. > > Thoughts? > > Best, > > Emily > > On 11 October 2011 05:49, Nettlefold, Peter > <Peter.Nettlefold(a)dbcde.gov.au <mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>> > wrote: > > Hi Kathy, > > I wanted to follow up the conversation about proxy services that > we began in MDR. > > In particular, I wanted to ask about what you meant by the > recommendation: > > 'Registrars may not knowingly use for their own registrations, or > register the domain names of p/p service providers who do not have > contracts with them' > > I'm assuming that a registrar has a contract with every registrant > as a matter of course, so I take it that this is referring to > having up front contracts with p/p providers? My question is would > this be separate to a global ICANN p/p accreditation or > registration scheme? > > My first intent here is to be really clear on what is intended. > Secondly, I wonder if it would be more efficient and effective to > have this kind of approach run in conjunctions with an ICANN > accreditation scheme - i.e. ICANN would accredit p/p providers in > a similar way that it does registrars, and any registrar could > then do business with those providers? Otherwise, couldn't we > would be faced with a range of issues, including registrars > potentially signing contracts with themselves (or their > subsidiaries, affiliates etc) to serve as p/p providers? > > I'm still looking forward to feedback from other team members on > the question of whether proxy services should be recognised by > ICANN, but wanted to discuss your proposals in the interim. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > > From: "kathy(a)kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>" <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Reviewing proxy/privacy ideas > Date: September 21, 2011 7:26:51 AM PDT > To: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois(a)icann.org > <mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org > <mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>>>, Sharon Lemon > <sharonchallis(a)aol.com > <mailto:sharonchallis@aol.com><mailto:sharonchallis@aol.com > <mailto:sharonchallis@aol.com>>> > Reply-To: "kathy(a)kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>" <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com > <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>> > > Hi All, > After good food and great company last night, I awoke with some > new ideas regarding proxy/privacy service providers. > What we know: > - Not too much. Proxy/privacy providers (p/p) are not > something we have studied closely. We know that many people, > including very experienced Net users, do not have a clear > distinction. They are generally used in the same voice at the same > time. > - We have no clear data about p/p. The upcoming GNSO > studies will provide a) a study on reveal and relay requests to > p/p providers, and b) a study of what percentage of "bad guys" are > under p/p registration. We have only a study that says that 15-20% > of domain names are under p/p, and an array of comments. We have > not actual facts about p/p providers themselves. > > - Under US law, there is a strong protection of privacy > and even anonymity in Free Speech, but "no tradition of anonymous > commerce in the US." Let me quote the World Trademark Review, > Aug/Sept 2011, article: "Why Trademark Owners Must lead the fight > for accountability in e-commerce." ** "Clearly the First > Amendment includes the right to speak anonymously. Moveover, the > First Amendment places anonymous speech on the Internet on the > same footing as other speech. As with other forms of expression, > the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the > robust exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express > themselves without fear of economic or official retaliation or > concern about social ostracism. The importance of the Internet to > the expression of protected speech cannot be overstated..." > Like the International Trademark Association, in some recent > legislative work in the US, let's focus on the conduct we are most > concerned about: > > - Domain names being used in conjunction with "goods or > services advertised or sold at that [a] website." (International > Trademark Association language as part of promoting a new US > Statute for services of process to domain registrants whose data > cannot be found - article above) > For our WRT decisions, let's please not create confusion. The > lines between p/p are difficult and unclear. Let's focus on > conduct we know is out there and bounds that can be quickly > established and are likely to help. ** Let me offer some > reflections of yesterday. We all seem to agree that: ** > - WE CAN BIND P/P CLOSER TO REGISTRARS, thus a Draft > Recommendation: Registrars may not knowingly use for their own > registrations, or register the domain names of p/p service > providers who do not have contracts with them; do not have clear > agreements to gather accurate Whois data from registrants; do not > have clear contractual obligations to Reveal the underlying > registrant data when requested under law or pursuant to ICANN rules. > - ICANN will rapidly establish a proceeding, with Law > Enforcement and Consumer Communities, as well as privacy and free > speech Official and Experts, to develop a set of Reveal and Relay > rules for p/p providers, in conjunction with the ICANN Community. > - Registrant Declaration: is the domain name being used > for goods or services sold or advertised using the domain name > (note: this includes not only websites, but emails and other forms > of domain name use). > > (Note: the GNSO might want to wait to set up rules until soon > after their $200,000+ studies are completed within the year) > > > Overall, separating out p/p providers without much more work and > very, very, very extensive education -- it will be very confusing > to ICANN and the Internet public. > > > > Best, Kathy > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > <mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org><mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org > <mailto:Rt4-whois@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 <http://www.axway.com>. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -- > > > > > __ > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 > emily(a)emilytaylor.eu <mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu> > > *www.etlaw.co.uk <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>* > > Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England > and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. > --

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call today @ 21:00 UTC
by Mikhail Yakushev Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Dear Sharon, colleagues, - My proposal in MdR was simple (to begin with :)) - let's introduce the section on Definitions wih the phrase like "for the purpose of the Report" {the Review Team suggests the following meanings for the terms as listed below}. Rgds, Michael From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seth M Reiss Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:09 PM To: 'LEMON, Sharon'; 'Alice Jansen'; rt4-whois(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call today @ 21:00 UTC Sharon I will work with you on the definitions. I just need to figure out how better to do the communications. Please let me know if get my emails directly or not. Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of LEMON, Sharon Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 8:52 AM To: 'Alice Jansen'; rt4-whois(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call today @ 21:00 UTC NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Dear All, It is very unlikely that I will be able to make the call tonight. Sorry. I have been working on my actions from our MdR meeting 1. I have prepared a simple explanation of Whois, which is attached, and Seth has given some feedback which I will incorporate if appropriate. I have heard nothing from anyone else. - which is a bit disappointing as I need feedback to make it a worthwhile document, and it took a lot of time and effort. 2. I am due to give feedback on Bill's explanation of Whois, which I only received a couple of hours ago, so haven't been able to give any detailed attention to yet. I will do as soon as I can. 3. Definitions: I haven't been in contact with any of the subteam given this action yet, but am happy to start an email chain around this, unless anyone else wants to start the work. I know Michael came up with some very useful suggestions at our MdR meeting - so if he could kick start this it would be useful - otherwise I will. You will know that I have difficulty accessing a lot of our messages due to our security settings, but if Alice could circulate a list of decisions and actions as a result of tonight's call, that would be great. I hope you are all well, Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: 12 October 2011 11:52 To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call today @ 21:00 UTC Dear Review Team Members, Your next conference call is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 12 October 2011** 21:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Policy+Review+Te… PASSWORD: 27318 followed by # Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+22+-+12+October+2011 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(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@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 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<mailto:PICUEnquiries@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

SSAC recommendations regarding terminology
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

Dear Tema Members, whiole waiting for my flight back home to Europe on Friday, I had the opportunity to consciously read the various documents, already having the considerations of the F2F meeting in my (almost empty :-) ) head. After doing so, I am wondering what the position of the team is wer the recommendations of the SSAC, specifically to think about adopting their proposals for terminology. I think adopting the basic suggestions to clearly specify registration data, protocol stuff and directory service/display for the end-user does make a lot of sense. I am less convinced that the more detailed and specific terminology suggestions and acronyms would really benefit the readers of our final report. Does anyone have a particular pov or guidance? Cheers, Wilfried.

4 7

Updated draft report
by Emily Taylor Oct. 10, 2011

Oct. 10, 2011

Hi Alice I've been working through my action points from the last meeting. As agreed, I have reviewed the consolidated report that you pulled together. I think that the structure is right, and as anticipated, it has revealed a number of areas of duplication. In general, the report is now over 100 pages long, even without significant elements of the content (ie the consumer study, and an expanded policy implementation section). Therefore, once we have nailed the recommendations in Dakar, our next challenge will be to sweep through the text, tighten up the language and reduce the length. An action for the whole team is to look through the recommendations again. They are now all in one place, and they do ramble on a bit, given that they are taken from multiple sources. Before arriving in Dakar, have a good sense of where you stand on all of them, and what's missing. I tried to add some overarching stuff up top - ie how are we going to measure the organisation's progress (and I'm v. mindful of James' comments about the ATRT's experience in this regard), and what do we expect from ICANN in response to the report, and when? I have amended the Implementation/Compliance chapter in a way that i hope reflects our discussions in MdR. Please would you upload the amended version of the consolidated document to the private Wiki, and then notify the team. Thanks Emily -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily(a)emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.

2 1

Your Dakar scheduled
by Alice Jansen Oct. 10, 2011

Oct. 10, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Please find enclosed a finalized version of your Dakar schedule. Wiki link: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Dakar+Meeting Saturday, 22 October 13:00-17:00 Face-to-Face meeting Room: B5/6 Sunday, 23 October 9:00-17:00 - Face-to-Face meeting Room: Ziquinchor Monday, 24 October 13:00-17:00 - Face-to-Face meeting Room: Ziquinchor Rest assured that I will email you outlook invitations. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or concerns. Thanks, Very best regards Alice

1 0

My first bit of homework
by LEMON, Sharon Oct. 10, 2011

Oct. 10, 2011

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Hello Everyone, One of my actions was to compile a simple guide to DNS and Whois, for those outside the murky waters of internet governance. Please find first attempt attached (with a little help from my friends) . Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 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.

2 1

For your approval - Prel Rep - MdR meeting
by Alice Jansen Oct. 9, 2011

Oct. 9, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the preliminary report of your face-to-face meeting held in Marina del Rey (20-21 September). Kindly note that this will be discussed during your upcoming call scheduled for Wednesday, 12 October (21:00 UTC). In the meantime, please feel free to email editing suggestions/requirements. Thanks, Very best regards Alice

1 0