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

Preliminary report for your approval - 9 Nov
by Alice Jansen May 1, 2012

May 1, 2012

Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the preliminary report of your teleconference held on 9 November. Kindly note that this will be discussed during your upcoming conference call. In the meantime, please feel free to email editing suggestions/requirements. Thanks, Very best regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Assistant, Organizational Reviews 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann

1 4

DAKAR MEETING - please confirm
by Alice Jansen Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, The next ICANN meeting will be held in Dakar - 23–28 October 2011. Information on this event (venue, hotel, health, visa etc) may be found on the ICANN website at: http://dakar42.icann.org/ With a view to preparing for this meeting, please let us know by Friday, 12 August whether: * you are attending the meeting (Yes/No) * you need travel support (Yes/No) If you do require travel support, please provide us with your desired arrival & departure dates. Once this information submitted, ICANN Constituency Travel will contact you directly to book your trip. * FLIGHTS: Please book your flights through ICANN Constituency Travel. Should you wish to book business or economy premium tickets, please know that an allowance will be granted to you according to your geographic region. * ACCOMMODATION: ICANN Constituency Travel will book your hotel room – please do not book via the website. This is the safe way to have ICANN cover your lodging needs. We look forward to receiving your details. In the meantime, do feel free to contact us should you have questions or concerns. Many thanks in advance, Very best regards Olof & Alice

7 7

Master document v1.2
by Alice Jansen Dec. 1, 2011

Dec. 1, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, My sincerest apologies for the confusion earlier today… Attached you will find the latest version of the master document. Also available on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report Please read the report very carefully, in particular the last three chapters which are "fairly new". Your feedback, final language and edits are more than welcome! For your convenience, I have enclosed the table of contents (see below). Any major amendments should be emailed to the list for Review Team discussion. Typos and minor edits on the hand, should be emailed to me. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or concerns. Many thanks in advance. Kind regards Very best regards Alice Table of Contents Chapter 1: Executive Summary 10 Chapter 2: The WHOIS Review Team, Scope of Work & Key Definitions 12 Chapter 3: The Complex History of WHOIS Policy17 Chapter 4: An Evaluation of ICANN’s Efforts to Monitor and Enforce its Policies “Compliance Efforts”32 Chapter 5: Internationalization Registrant Data and the Difficult Problem of WHOIS Translation36 Chapter 6: Understanding the Needs of Stakeholders41 Chapter 7: Gap Analysis72 Chapter 8: Recommendations78 -- Alice Jansen Assistant, Organizational Reviews 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann

2 1

Updated Recommendation 14 - Centralized Database
by Kathy Kleiman Dec. 1, 2011

Dec. 1, 2011

Hi All, Tx for the many comments about the "centralized database" recommendation (now #14). I have worked with Michael and Omar on it, and would like to propose the following, narrower, recommendation: ===> Rec 14: To improve access to the WHOIS data of .COM and .NET gTLDs, the only remaining Thin Registries, ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick Whois data for them. Here's the original text. ===> 14. To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to allow "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information". Such interface should provide thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names. Best, Kathy --

6 9

Re: [Rt4-whois] streamlined proxy recommendation language
by Kathy Kleiman Dec. 1, 2011

Dec. 1, 2011

Great comments, Seth. I defer to Susan and James, as the experts on this material. Best, Kathy : > > Thank you Kathy for breaking this out. I have not been good about > reviewing the entire document. > > To respond to Peter's question about what would be legally > enforceable, I think if you look at bullet number 6, if this bullet > was implemented in a very clear and unambiguous way, by itself and > without some of the other material being proposal, then I think there > would be reasonable expectation that national courts would hold the > registrant proxy service fully responsible for harm caused by a > website hosted at the domain name at issue. In other words, the Ninth > Circuit decision that Susan highlighted would have been decided > differently. > > Once you introduce definitions concerning affiliates, retail services > and different flavors of proxy services, the cheap ones with flimsy > relationships, and the expensive ones with fiduciary type > relationships, it will appear to the court that you do not really mean > what you saying in bullet number 6. This will confuse the courts (and > the public) and the registrant proxy services is more likely to be > able to weasel out of being held liable. > > The current proposal on the table suggests to me a somewhat more > complicated model whereby the registrant proxy service is fully liable > for the use of the domain name but can shield that liability by > adopted and fully complying the a specific set of reveal and relay > processes etc. I voluntary set of best practices would not do this, > but a mandatory set of provisions to qualify a proxy service for a > "safe harbor" would. Such a safe hard model would in my view be more > difficult to implement and is likely to give rise to a certain amount > of uncertainty and inconsistent outcomes even if prudently > implemented. But this also assumes that we need to have a proxy > service in which proxies may shield themselves from liability. In all > our discussions, I have still not heard a persuasive argument why a > proxy service industry that can shield itself from liability is > necessary or good or appropriate. > > Seth > > *From:*rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:24 PM > *To:* rt4-whois(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] streamlined proxy recommendation language > > Hi All, > I feel like I am sending altogether too many emails today. Sorry :-)! > Anyway, here's one more. I worked with James, a little, and Susan, > more, on streamlining the Proxy recommendations to look, sound and > flow like the Privacy recommendations. Of course, proxy is voluntary, > and privacy is a requirement, but the rest is fairly close. > > They are below and attached. If you like them, we'll send them on to > Alice for inclusion. Note: the definitions went into a footnote which > should be easy to see as it will be quite extensive. > > here's the text: > > *Data Access- Proxy Service * > > 1.ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by reaching > out to proxy providers to create a discussion which sets out current > processes followed by proxy service providers. > > 2.Registrars should be required to disclosure their relationship with > any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider to ICANN. > > 3.ICANN should develop and manage a set of voluntary best practice > guidelines for appropriate proxy services [footnote 1] consistent with > national laws. These voluntary guidelines should strike an appropriate > balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests. > At a minimum this would include privacy, law enforcement and the > industry around law enforcement. > > Such voluntary guidelines may include: > > + Proxy services provide full contact details as required by the Whois > > + Publication by the proxy service of its process for revealing and > relaying information > > + Standardization of reveal and relay processes and timeframes, > consistent with national laws > > + Maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the proxy > service provider > > + Due diligence checks on licensee contact information. > > 5. ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with > the retail service providers that adopt the best practices. > > 6. For the avoidance of doubt, the WHOIS Policy, referred to in > Recommendation 1 above, should include an affirmative statement that > clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the Registrant is > acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that of the agent, and > the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for > the domain name and its manner of use. > > Footnote 1 (all the remaining text) > As guidance to the Community and as useful background for the Proxy > Service Recommendations, the Review Team provides its working > definitions of proxy service and different types of proxy service > providers: > > - *_Proxy Service_ *-- a relationship in which the registrant is > acting on behalf of another The WHOIS data is that of the agent and > the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for > the domain name and its manner of use. /[KK: is this the definition we > are using in other places in the Report?]/ > > /- /*_Affiliated Registrar _*_- _another ICANN accredited registrar > that operates under a common controlling interest (2009 Registrar > Accreditation Agreement, Section 1.20) > > - *Affiliate retail proxy service provider *-- entity operating under > a common controlling interest of a registrar. > > - *Retail proxy service provider *- proxy service with little or no > knowledge of the entity or individual requesting the service beyond > their ability to pay and their agreement to the general terms and > conditions. > > - *_Limited proxy service provider _*- proxy service for an entity or > individual in which there is an ongoing business relationship bound by > a contract that is specific to the relationship. > > > > --- end > same text attached > Kathy > > -- > > --

3 2

Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns
by James M. Bladel Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

10 12

streamlined proxy recommendation language
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Hi All, I feel like I am sending altogether too many emails today. Sorry :-)! Anyway, here's one more. I worked with James, a little, and Susan, more, on streamlining the Proxy recommendations to look, sound and flow like the Privacy recommendations. Of course, proxy is voluntary, and privacy is a requirement, but the rest is fairly close. They are below and attached. If you like them, we'll send them on to Alice for inclusion. Note: the definitions went into a footnote which should be easy to see as it will be quite extensive. here's the text: *Data Access- Proxy Service * 1. ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by reaching out to proxy providers to create a discussion which sets out current processes followed by proxy service providers. 2. Registrars should be required to disclosure their relationship with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider to ICANN. 3. ICANN should develop and manage a set of voluntary best practice guidelines for appropriate proxy services [footnote 1] consistent with national laws. These voluntary guidelines should strike an appropriate balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests. At a minimum this would include privacy, law enforcement and the industry around law enforcement. Such voluntary guidelines may include: + Proxy services provide full contact details as required by the Whois + Publication by the proxy service of its process for revealing and relaying information + Standardization of reveal and relay processes and timeframes, consistent with national laws + Maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the proxy service provider + Due diligence checks on licensee contact information. 5. ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the retail service providers that adopt the best practices. 6. For the avoidance of doubt, the WHOIS Policy, referred to in Recommendation 1 above, should include an affirmative statement that clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the Registrant is acting on behalf of another. The WHOIS data is that of the agent, and the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. Footnote 1 (all the remaining text) As guidance to the Community and as useful background for the Proxy Service Recommendations, the Review Team provides its working definitions of proxy service and different types of proxy service providers: - _*Proxy Service*_**-- a relationship in which the registrant is acting on behalf of another The WHOIS data is that of the agent and the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. /[KK: is this the definition we are //using//in other places in the Report?]/ /- /_*Affiliated Registrar *__- _another ICANN accredited registrar that operates under a common controlling interest (2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, Section 1.20) - *Affiliate retail proxy service provider *-- entity operating under a common controlling interest of a registrar. - *Retail proxy service provider *- proxy service with little or no knowledge of the entity or individual requesting the service beyond their ability to pay and their agreement to the general terms and conditions. - _*Limited proxy service provider *_- proxy service for an entity or individual in which there is an ongoing business relationship bound by a contract that is specific to the relationship. --- end same text attached Kathy --

2 1

Fw: Recommendations - updated language SOURCED [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by Nettlefold, Peter Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hi all, In answer to Seth's question on the proxy recommendations, I don't seem to be able to forward the document I was looking at to you, but it was attached to this email that Emily sent. I hope this helps. You'll see that it first has our recommendation from Dakar, and then leads to Susan et al's proposal with the lead in of 'further, ...' which was the trigger for me thinking about potentially meeting both goals. While on the recommendations, I wanted to pass my apologies to James. I understand that the privacy changes I mentioned yesterday were put forward by James. I did have trouble opening James' attachments to the list, but should have looked into that further - so sorry about that. Cheers, Peter From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 03:17 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com> Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org <rt4-whois(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED Many thanks Susan. If you could get the new language out to the list by the top of the hour (ie 40 minutes or so) that would be great. Please use this version of the document. On 30 November 2011 15:35, Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> wrote: Hi Emily I have reviewed the recommendations document and I think once Lutz' recommendation is included we have captures everything. On the proxy proposal James had suggested less detail on what the best practices would be. I can agree with that. I am currently on my way into the office and can send proposed language at that time. I have not reviewed the full report after the revisions last night and would like the opportunity to do so What is the current cut off time? Susan Sent from my iPhone On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:54 AM, "Emily Taylor" <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> wrote: Dang! This document is supposed to contain all of our recommendations. Thanks Lynn, good catch. I was intending to put it in and forgot AGAIN. Trying not to introduce additional language at this late stage Lynn. Did we already agree a consumer awareness programme recommendation? I can't find it, but happy to be corrected. I will re-issue this document with Lutz's draft - Lutz, OK if I tweak some of the language? On 30 November 2011 14:51, <<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> wrote: I made a quick read Emily and have no objections to these recommendations. Are these just the recommendations with some remaining contention amongst the team members? I was looking for Lutz's recommendation on a centralized interface for ease of fnding WHOIS data. Also want to make sure we recommend that ICANN develop and execute an ongoing consumer awareness program. I will be happy to draft that recommendation. Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED From: Emily Taylor <<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:14 am To: <mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Hi all Following the queries on the list overnight, I have tried as best I can to piece together the language of the recommendations.The documents I checked against were <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclu…> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclu… (Draft Recommendations discussed in Dakar), and this <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recom…> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recom… (The first consolidated draft of what was agreed in Dakar, and MdR). However, like others, I have found it confusing to understand from the multiple drafts posted on the private WIKI, but I do think the draft of 21 November (second link above) is a fair representation of what we as a team negotiated and agreed. I have gone back to text that we agreed in MdR and Dakar, and tried only to add text in the following circumstances: - Where the sense was unclear, or we were tasking the wrong people - Where the text has evolved through consent of the team since Dakar (IDNs and Proxies) - Where the text has come from another, stable source (compliance recommendation on WDRP). There, as the author and having received a comment from James on the correct parties to task, I have cleaned up the language. I hope I have done a fair job on this. I have noted one place (privacy recs.) where there is contested language. My proposal - sorry James - is that we revert to our agreed text from Dakar on this. If I have made mistakes on the source language, I apologise, this is not intentional and I am happy to be corrected. Please carefully consider these recommendations. They can be improved, the language could be better, clearer, but they are what we agreed. Please let me have any show stoppers by 1600 UTC. Kind regards Emily -- 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811<tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811> • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322<tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322> <mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu> <http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>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. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list <mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org>Rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811<tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811> • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322<tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322> <mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu> <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>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. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by Lutz Donnerhacke Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:50:30AM -1000, Seth M Reiss wrote: > If we cannot get a consensus for applying the smart portal ideas for all registries, then how about stating that it should be implemented for at least the .com and .net registry with the view of extending it to other existing and future registries as appropriate. There is no problem with COM/NET. There is a problem with accessing ANY WHOIS database.

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by Emily Taylor Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Thanks Seth I would support that/ E On 30 November 2011 21:50, Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com> wrote: > If we cannot get a consensus for applying the smart portal ideas for all > registries, then how about stating that it should be implemented for at > least the .com and .net registry with the view of extending it to other > existing and future registries as appropriate.**** > > ** ** > > Seth**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank@fb.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:40 AM > *To:* Nettlefold, Peter; 'emily(a)emilytaylor.eu' > *Cc:* 'seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com'; 'jbladel(a)godaddy.com'; 'rt4-whois(a)icann.org > ' > > *Subject:* RE: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - > Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > > ** ** > > agreed**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:39 PM > *To:* 'emily(a)emilytaylor.eu'; Susan Kawaguchi > *Cc:* 'seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com'; 'jbladel(a)godaddy.com'; 'rt4-whois(a)icann.org > ' > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - > Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > > ** ** > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > > Hi again, > > As this is our draft, can we propose a compehensive solution (there are > good reasons in favour), and then see what the other registries say? Maybe > they won't oppose it. And if they do, at least we'll know why. > > What would we lose by trying? > > Cheers > > Peter > > **** > > *From*: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu] > *Sent*: Thursday, December 01, 2011 08:32 AM > *To*: Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com> > *Cc*: Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com>; Nettlefold, Peter; > jbladel(a)godaddy.com <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>; rt4-whois(a)icann.org < > rt4-whois(a)icann.org> > *Subject*: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - > Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > **** > > I agree with Susan. > > Does the most recent wording reflect the "smart web portal" concept? > Sorry if I've missed it. Have just got in.**** > > On 30 November 2011 21:30, Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com> wrote:**** > > I will not oppose it if we include all gTlds but my gut feeling is that > the other registries may be opposed to being included in this web portal. > If we keep it as uncomplicated as possible we are more likely to gain the > consensus of the community. **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* Seth M Reiss [mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:25 PM > *To:* Susan Kawaguchi; 'Nettlefold, Peter'; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; > emily(a)emilytaylor.eu > *Cc:* rt4-whois(a)icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - > Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > > **** > > I agree with Peter. I do not know why we would want to limit it to .com > and .net even though these GTLDs present the greatest challenge to the > WHOIS consumer. I think the smart portal idea that Lutz proposed avoid the > concerns Kathy expressed regarding management; I am not sure I understand > Susan’s concerns that it be limited to only to the two GTLDs most in need > of the service.**** > > **** > > Seth**** > > **** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi**** > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:15 AM**** > > *To:* Nettlefold, Peter; 'jbladel(a)godaddy.com'; 'emily(a)emilytaylor.eu'**** > > > *Cc:* 'rt4-whois(a)icann.org' > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - > Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > > **** > > That was my understanding when we discussed previously but this would only > be for .com and .net registrations. Is this feasible ? **** > > **** > > *From:* Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:12 PM > *To:* Susan Kawaguchi; 'jbladel(a)godaddy.com'; 'emily(a)emilytaylor.eu' > *Cc:* 'rt4-whois(a)icann.org' > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - > Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]**** > > **** > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > > Hello all, > > I've missed a lot of discussion on this overnight my time, so I apologise > if I've missed something that answers my question. > > The references to an ICANN database are confusing to me, and may be part > of the contention here. > > I had understood that we would recommend that ICANN create a smart web > portal for consumers that would effectively do a WHOIS search for them. As > I understood it, ICANN would not need to make its own database, thereby > avoiding some of the data protection issues, and instead purely focus on > the user experience. > > Is this what others had understood? > > If so, does this address the concerns about scope - ie why wouldn't ICANN > provide a comprehensive search tool for all gTLDs? > > Please let me know if I've got this wrong. > > Cheers > > Peter > > **** > > *From*: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank@fb.com] > *Sent*: Thursday, December 01, 2011 03:27 AM > *To*: James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>; Emily Taylor < > emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> > *Cc*: rt4-whois(a)icann.org <rt4-whois(a)icann.org> > *Subject*: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - > Scope and concerns > **** > > I agree that we should not try and answer all the questions but I was > under the impression that the centralized WHOIS was only targeting .com and > .net to solve the problem of having to search for the correct registrar out > of the almost 1000 possible. **** > > **** > > I do not agree to include all gtlds. **** > > **** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *James M. Bladel > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:21 AM > *To:* Emily Taylor > *Cc:* rt4-whois(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - > Scope and concerns**** > > **** > > No, I don't think we should attempt to answer these questions in RT4, nor > presume that we have even identified all of the dependent questions.**** > > **** > > I believe our recommendation should task the Board, within a reasonable > timeframe (90 days?), to request an issues report on a Centralized WHOIS > system for all gTLDs, including how it should be operated and what measures > would be adopted to protect against abuse / privacy violations / data > harvesting. **** > > **** > > (This will initiate a PDP which, while slower, will be a more > comprehensive approach)**** > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - > Scope and concerns > From: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> > Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 10:15 am > To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, rt4-whois(a)icann.org > > Hi James > > Thanks for raising these points. Can you suggest some language which you > think would work? Also, Kathy raised a good point about whether this is > limited to thin registries (.com, .net) or all? I don't think we've ever > discussed this. > > Kind regards > > Emily**** > > On 30 November 2011 16:06, James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> wrote:*** > * > > I don't oppose this recommendation, but my issue with this is that we are > once again being too vague in what we're asking.**** > > **** > > ICANN: Who? Staff? The Board? The GNSO? Contracted 3rd party?**** > > **** > > Set up: How? By launching a PDP? Sending out an RFP?**** > > **** > > Deadline? **** > > **** > > Are we confident that this group has considered all of the consequences to > privacy, security, access, SLAs, etc.? (Reasons why a PDP can be more > helpful for things like this...)**** > > **** > > Thanks--**** > > > J.**** > > **** > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - > Scope and concerns > From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> > Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:56 am > To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org**** > > > > All, > Is this the current version of the Lutz proposal now in circulation? I > thought it applied only to a centralized database of the current "thin > registries," namely .COM and .NET. If so, I can see the advantages and > support sending it out as a recommendation in the draft report. > > But if this is a single database of all registries, thick and thin, now > and in the future, I think we creating a database problem. It's an > enormous amount of data and creates a focal point for abuse, for > warehousing, etc. It's the type of policing job that ICANN has never had > to do, and is not operationally set up to do. > > So thought summary: If ICANN is helping remedy a bad situation by > operating a single registry for .COM and .NET to fix a historical > problem, I think I am OK for now (pending review of the draft with > registries -- after publication is fine). One database of all Whois > information to Rule the World, not so good. > > RECOMMENDATION EDIT: > > Detailed recommendation: > ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual website to allow > "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS > information" **FOR .COM AND .NET, THE EXISTING "THIN REGISTRIES"** even > for those people which have problems with the plain > WHOIS protocol. > > The WHOIS information should be collected by following the thin WHOIS > approach starting at whois.iana.org. The service should display the > contractural relationships which are revealed by the WHOIS referals in > a clear and understandable way. The results should be mark clearly the > relevant information "including registrant, technical, ** DELETE BILLING** > billing, and > administrative contact" data. > > ** NOTE: Billing data, which includes credit cards Folks, is simply not > displayed in any other Whois search results. It is only registrant, > technical, and admin contact.** > > Best, > Kathy > > > > Proposal: > > > > Summary: > > ICANN should set up and maintain a web interface to access > > all the WHOIS services in order to ease access to the WHOIS data. > > > > Presumption: > > The AoC requires 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." > > > > Observation: > > An User Insight Report came up with the following results: > > + Almost nobody is aware of whois > > + Almost nobody is able to query a whois server correctly > > + Whois queries were done on websites which occur first in the search > > engine results. Usually those pages are overloaded with advertisments. > > > > Detailed recommendation: > > ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual website to allow > > "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS > > information" even for those people which have problems with the plain > > WHOIS protocol. > > > > The WHOIS information should be collected by following the thin WHOIS > > approach starting at whois.iana.org. The service should display the > > contractural relationships which are revealed by the WHOIS referals in > > a clear and understandable way. The results should be mark clearly the > > relevant information "including registrant, technical, billing, and > > administrative contact" data. > > > > The server needs to be run by ICANN itself, because the "timely, > > unrestricted and public access" is usually rate limited, stripped or even > > blocked by the various WHOIS server administrators for uncontractual > > third party access. ICANN itself is the only party having the power to > > overcome those limits using its contratual compliance. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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**** > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.**** > > **** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > 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. > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***** > > > > > -- > > > **** > > * > * > > 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.**** > > ** ** > > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * > 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. > > * > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***** > -- * * 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

Recommendations - SOURCE EXPLANATION (2).doc
by Susan Kawaguchi Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

HI Emily, James and I had a quick phone call to discuss the proxy recommendation. He made a great point that we should include in the recommendation reviewing the existing proxy practices so I have added the following point. 1) Review existing practices by reaching out to proxy providers and foster a discussion to develop, clarify and enhance the current processes Please see the whole recommendation incorporated in the attached document. Susan

3 2

Re: [Rt4-whois] Updated Recommendation 14 - Centralized Database
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

4 3

Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by Susan Kawaguchi Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

I will not oppose it if we include all gTlds but my gut feeling is that the other registries may be opposed to being included in this web portal. If we keep it as uncomplicated as possible we are more likely to gain the consensus of the community. From: Seth M Reiss [mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:25 PM To: Susan Kawaguchi; 'Nettlefold, Peter'; jbladel(a)godaddy.com; emily(a)emilytaylor.eu Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I agree with Peter. I do not know why we would want to limit it to .com and .net even though these GTLDs present the greatest challenge to the WHOIS consumer. I think the smart portal idea that Lutz proposed avoid the concerns Kathy expressed regarding management; I am not sure I understand Susan’s concerns that it be limited to only to the two GTLDs most in need of the service. Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:15 AM To: Nettlefold, Peter; 'jbladel(a)godaddy.com'; 'emily(a)emilytaylor.eu' Cc: 'rt4-whois(a)icann.org' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] That was my understanding when we discussed previously but this would only be for .com and .net registrations. Is this feasible ? From: Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:12 PM To: Susan Kawaguchi; 'jbladel(a)godaddy.com'; 'emily(a)emilytaylor.eu' Cc: 'rt4-whois(a)icann.org' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello all, I've missed a lot of discussion on this overnight my time, so I apologise if I've missed something that answers my question. The references to an ICANN database are confusing to me, and may be part of the contention here. I had understood that we would recommend that ICANN create a smart web portal for consumers that would effectively do a WHOIS search for them. As I understood it, ICANN would not need to make its own database, thereby avoiding some of the data protection issues, and instead purely focus on the user experience. Is this what others had understood? If so, does this address the concerns about scope - ie why wouldn't ICANN provide a comprehensive search tool for all gTLDs? Please let me know if I've got this wrong. Cheers Peter From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank@fb.com] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 03:27 AM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>; Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org <rt4-whois(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns I agree that we should not try and answer all the questions but I was under the impression that the centralized WHOIS was only targeting .com and .net to solve the problem of having to search for the correct registrar out of the almost 1000 possible. I do not agree to include all gtlds. From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:21 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns No, I don't think we should attempt to answer these questions in RT4, nor presume that we have even identified all of the dependent questions. I believe our recommendation should task the Board, within a reasonable timeframe (90 days?), to request an issues report on a Centralized WHOIS system for all gTLDs, including how it should be operated and what measures would be adopted to protect against abuse / privacy violations / data harvesting. (This will initiate a PDP which, while slower, will be a more comprehensive approach) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns From: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 10:15 am To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Hi James Thanks for raising these points. Can you suggest some language which you think would work? Also, Kathy raised a good point about whether this is limited to thin registries (.com, .net) or all? I don't think we've ever discussed this. Kind regards Emily On 30 November 2011 16:06, James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: I don't oppose this recommendation, but my issue with this is that we are once again being too vague in what we're asking. ICANN: Who? Staff? The Board? The GNSO? Contracted 3rd party? Set up: How? By launching a PDP? Sending out an RFP? Deadline? Are we confident that this group has considered all of the consequences to privacy, security, access, SLAs, etc.? (Reasons why a PDP can be more helpful for things like this...) Thanks-- J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:56 am To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> All, Is this the current version of the Lutz proposal now in circulation? I thought it applied only to a centralized database of the current "thin registries," namely .COM and .NET. If so, I can see the advantages and support sending it out as a recommendation in the draft report. But if this is a single database of all registries, thick and thin, now and in the future, I think we creating a database problem. It's an enormous amount of data and creates a focal point for abuse, for warehousing, etc. It's the type of policing job that ICANN has never had to do, and is not operationally set up to do. So thought summary: If ICANN is helping remedy a bad situation by operating a single registry for .COM and .NET to fix a historical problem, I think I am OK for now (pending review of the draft with registries -- after publication is fine). One database of all Whois information to Rule the World, not so good. RECOMMENDATION EDIT: Detailed recommendation: ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual website to allow "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information" **FOR .COM AND .NET, THE EXISTING "THIN REGISTRIES"** even for those people which have problems with the plain WHOIS protocol. The WHOIS information should be collected by following the thin WHOIS approach starting at whois.iana.org<http://whois.iana.org>. The service should display the contractural relationships which are revealed by the WHOIS referals in a clear and understandable way. The results should be mark clearly the relevant information "including registrant, technical, ** DELETE BILLING** billing, and administrative contact" data. ** NOTE: Billing data, which includes credit cards Folks, is simply not displayed in any other Whois search results. It is only registrant, technical, and admin contact.** Best, Kathy > Proposal: > > Summary: > ICANN should set up and maintain a web interface to access > all the WHOIS services in order to ease access to the WHOIS data. > > Presumption: > The AoC requires 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." > > Observation: > An User Insight Report came up with the following results: > + Almost nobody is aware of whois > + Almost nobody is able to query a whois server correctly > + Whois queries were done on websites which occur first in the search > engine results. Usually those pages are overloaded with advertisments. > > Detailed recommendation: > ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual website to allow > "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS > information" even for those people which have problems with the plain > WHOIS protocol. > > The WHOIS information should be collected by following the thin WHOIS > approach starting at whois.iana.org<http://whois.iana.org>. The service should display the > contractural relationships which are revealed by the WHOIS referals in > a clear and understandable way. The results should be mark clearly the > relevant information "including registrant, technical, billing, and > administrative contact" data. > > The server needs to be run by ICANN itself, because the "timely, > unrestricted and public access" is usually rate limited, stripped or even > blocked by the various WHOIS server administrators for uncontractual > third party access. ICANN itself is the only party having the power to > overcome those limits using its contratual compliance. > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 5

Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

1 0

WHOIS Policy RT - Law Enforcement comments.
by LEMON, Sharon Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Dear Emily, Alice and All, Sorry for arriving at the party late, I have been watching in awe the hundreds of emails flying about. We gave until today for our international colleagues to comment and we have just had our own internal meeting to finalise the comments on the paper. The paper complemented our ongoing law enforcement work within the ICANN community and there are not comments of major significance -ours are in green. I know that Alice is currently going through the nightmare of trying to organise the version control. (Good Luck and thanks Alice). I have replaced the definition of law enforcement with: Any entity with a responsibility to enforce or ensure observance to or obedience of the law, whether mandated by government or otherwise. We could go on forever with this - but let me know if there are any show stopping objections. I hope we make the deadline of 5pm ;-) Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 -----Original Message----- From: KIBBEY, Gary Sent: 30 November 2011 13:16 To: LEMON, Sharon Subject: FW: Emailing: WHOIS Policy RT - Draft report - 24 Nov - Clean CC GK Comments NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Gary Kibbey/ Senior Manager Cyber Serious Organised Crime Agency / Tel +44(0)207 855 2863 +44(0)7876790990 gary.kibbey(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: FLAHERTY, Jonathan Sent: 29 November 2011 17:54 To: KIBBEY, Gary; ADDIS, Benedict Cc: CURLEY, Cliona Subject: RE: Emailing: WHOIS Policy RT - Draft report - 24 Nov - Clean CC GK Comments NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED My comments added. Jon Flaherty | HVOM | SOCA Cyber & Forensics | 0207 855 2808 | 07919 218439 | jonathan.flaherty(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: KIBBEY, Gary Sent: 29 November 2011 14:34 To: FLAHERTY, Jonathan; ADDIS, Benedict Cc: CURLEY, Cliona Subject: FW: Emailing: WHOIS Policy RT - Draft report - 24 Nov - Clean CC GK Comments NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Gents If you have any comments -can you drop onto this working copy. Don't track changes - just comments. Ta Gary Gary Kibbey/ Senior Manager Cyber Serious Organised Crime Agency / Tel +44(0)207 855 2863 +44(0)7876790990 gary.kibbey(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: KIBBEY, Gary Sent: 29 November 2011 14:31 To: KIBBEY, Gary Subject: Emailing: WHOIS Policy RT - Draft report - 24 Nov - Clean CC GK Comments NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: WHOIS Policy RT - Draft report - 24 Nov - Clean CC GK Comments Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 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.

5 8

Re: [Rt4-whois] Applicable law updated with comments
by Omar Kaminski Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Seems I made my considerations in the wrong email, but they are the same, besides one more point on privacy laws: if the Whois system should be kept public and accessible, the problems should arise specially - surprise! in fact, not - on proxy servers and services that keep personal data on private, or under certain conditions (usually paying a tax). Omar 2011/11/30 Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com>: > Good > > > > From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:15 AM > To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Applicable law updated with comments > > > > Hi All, On a key definition applicable law, Alice and I adopted the edits > proposed: > > ==> Now: The Team understands the “applicable laws” reference as > encompassing all laws, but mainly focused on privacy laws and regulations, > and notes ICANN’s existing consensus policy relating to conflicts with > privacy laws. The Team considered, but determined not to include within the > definition, international agreements and regional laws recognizing that such > laws are enforceable only to the extent incorporated into the domestic laws > of contracting states. > > OK? Raise a flag if not. Tx! Kathy & Alice > > ORIGINAL ===> The Team understands the “applicable laws” reference as > limited to privacy laws and regulation (SK) comment: I agree with Emily > should change to “encompass all laws but many mainly focus on privacy laws > and regulations” and notes ICANN’s existing consensus policy relating to > conflicts with privacy laws. The Team considered but determined not to > include within the definition international agreements and regional laws, > recognizing that such laws are enforceable only to the extent incorporated > into the domestic laws of contracting states. > > -- > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >

1 0

Applicable law updated with comments
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Hi All, On a key definition applicable law, Alice and I adopted the edits proposed: ==> Now: The Team understands the "applicable laws" reference as encompassing all laws, but mainly focused on privacy laws and regulations, and notes ICANN's existing consensus policy relating to conflicts with privacy laws. The Team considered, but determined not to include within the definition, international agreements and regional laws recognizing that such laws are enforceable only to the extent incorporated into the domestic laws of contracting states. OK? Raise a flag if not. Tx! Kathy & Alice ORIGINAL ===> The Team understands the "applicable laws" reference as limited to privacy laws and regulation (SK) comment: I agree with Emily should change to "encompass all laws but many mainly focus on privacy laws and regulations" and notes ICANN's existing consensus policy relating to conflicts with privacy laws. The Team considered but determined not to include within the definition international agreements and regional laws, recognizing that such laws are enforceable only to the extent incorporated into the domestic laws of contracting states. --

2 1

Clean copy
by Alice Jansen Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the latest versions of the master document and appendices. (clean copy – 30 November 16:30 UTC – Alice Jansen) Since I have applied formatting suggestions Kathy emailed me to the document, I would be very grateful if penholders of chapters could please check the formatting structure of their chapters. Does this match your train on thought? If not, please email me asap so that I can rectify it for the subsequent version. Documents will be available on the wiki in a couple of minutes. The files need additional work (typo hunting etc) but I would be very grateful if you could please read these documents very carefully and flag any missing piece of information or inconsistency you notice. Many thanks in advance, Kind regards Alice -- Alice Jansen Assistant, Organizational Reviews 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels Belgium Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann

5 5

WHERE ARE WE NOW? UPDATE
by Emily Taylor Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Hi all Thanks for your amazing productivity and dedication today. I have heard from more than 1 member of the Team at 5am their local time today. Very, very much appreciated. OK - this is what we needed to do today: (1) Definitions of law enf. and applicable laws. Minor changes requested by Peter - are we comfortable, or not? DONE (2) Where are we on proxies? - is there some agreed text to go into the recommendations now (thanks for your work on this Susan, James and others) IN PROGRESS (3) How much of the consumer chapter stays in the full report, and how much goes into an appendix. DONE (4) Background on WHOIS chapter - does it stay where it is, or does it go into an appendix? DONE (5) any final comments on the compliance letter, please? Alice, please can you produce a clean copy of this. IN PROGRESS _ ALICE HAS BEEN WRESTLING WITH THE FULL REPORT TODAY. Well done, all. Thank you Alice for producing the consolidated version. *Outstanding open issues on recommendations: (1) The recommendation on "interface" (Lutz's one). James has suggested that we frame this as an issues report, and this has found support from me, Kathy, Omar, Mikhail and Bill. Can we do this please? (2) Proxy recommendations. Bill has raised a problem with the proposed best practices; Susan has acknowledged that she and James would be happy with less detail - waiting for proposed language here. Susan has just circulated an additional proposed recommendation on reviewing existing practices. (3) The Person - Bill raised a query whether this should be a member of the Compliance team, or someone else. *I see (1) and (3) are easy and (2) is difficult. On a more general level, James has repeatedly and rightly raised that our recommendations need to have time frames, and be correctly targeted. I agree, and I'm sure we all do, but we're struggling to know how to do this. I have one suggestion, which would be to task the Board to consider our recommendations within 3 months, and present an action plan for implementation within another 3 months, together with budgetary impact and the identity of who has been tasked. James -would this work? *Rest of the document *This is mainly in good shape, but it needs a proof-read now, and the elimination of the remaining highlighted text - I do not see these as contentious. Bill is working to pull together the language of the findings/conclusions just before the recommendations. *What's the plan now? *I want us to sign off definitively on the recommendations, and stabilise the text in the next hour, please. To do this, folks, we're going to sort out the proxies. Please note that there is already one team member (Bill) expressing concern on these; as I read Peter's mails on the subject he was also expressing concerns that we are introducing very detailed text very late in the day. We have a strong statement on proxy liability from Dakar. Can we have proposals to close this down, please? Over the next two days, I would like Alice and Kathy to carefully proof-read, and tidy up the text in the main body of the report. If there are any volunteers to assist them (Bill - you mentioned that you may have some time? Others?? ). Then we can get it published, but we need to sign off on the substantive recommendations in the *next hour!* Kind regards 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.

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns
by James M. Bladel Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

4 3

Re: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

4 4

Fwd: Recommendations and general update
by Emily Taylor Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Many thanks, Lynn For the latest version - we have the Consumer Trust chapter edited as attached, and in place after Chapter 7 and before Chapter 8. Highlighted bits to be removed to an appendix. Kind regards Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com> Date: 30 November 2011 15:38 Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations and general update To: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> don't worry - I got it. Agree we can streamline it by moving details into an appendix. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations and general update From: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 10:14 am To: lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org Hi Lynn Thanks for that on the order of the whole report. Sorry, I wasn't very clear in what I was suggesting. I'm not saying the entire thing should go into an appendix. Far from it. I attach a mark up showing my thoughts on what could go into an appendix, and some minor text edits otherwise. Please let me know what you think. Kind regards Emily On 30 November 2011 14:20, <lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote: > Agreeable to putting the Consumer Trust chapter after Chapter 7- Law > Enforcement. > My feeling is that rather than an appendix for the Consumer Trust Chapter, > we should just make appendicies of the two User Insight powerpoint slides. > The slides are clear and lay out the same details. > > But I am reluctant to continue editing on my own working document and feel > I should wait for your marked up version. > I will also be happy to help Alice with administrative edits such as > grammar, spelling, formatting and creating the Table of Contents. > There was a section of content I removed because it looked like a Table of > Contents to me. It said here is how our paper is laid out. > Lynn > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations and general update > From: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> > Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 8:00 am > To: lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com > Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org > > Hi Lynn > > Delighted to have you online, and thanks for joining so early. Please > press on. I'll be sending out a marked up version of the recommendations > (showing the source - the best of my abilities) within the hour. > The table of contents is excellent, and very helpful for the reader. > > Please would you take a careful look at the following: > > 1/ We discussed by e-mail last night the possibility of shifting some of > the content from the Consumer Research chapter into an appendix. Could you > have a look at this, and make suggestions? > 2/ Please would you give careful thought to the positioning of the > Consumer Trust chapter. Peter, Kathy and I were thinking it would go very > well after the Chapter 7 (what law enforcement want) and before our > findings (Chapter 8 ) and recommendations (9). I see that in your latest > mark up you have the chapter where it originally was. I think this not > such a good position, because after it we immediately flip back into > background stuff like the history of how the policy developed, what the > compliance team does. The consumer stuff I see as real meat and potatoes - > good for the analysis section. I would appreciate your thoughts on this > Lynn. > > > Kind regards > > Emily > > On 30 November 2011 12:20, <lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote: > >> I'm back at my computer - my time zone is GMT -5 and it is morning here. >> Not sure whether to do any further editing or not so will stand by and be >> available to help. >> >> I did feel very encouraged that in just making administrative edits and >> removing the yellow highlighting, it was easier to see the remaining points >> of contention. >> >> Also felt that creating a Table of Contents is needed. >> Happy to help in any way to move this forward. >> Lynn >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations and general update >> From: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> >> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 4:41 am >> To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org >> >> Hi all >> >> Thanks for your work overnight (or at least, my night). >> >> I'm trying to pull together the threads of the many e-mail messages that >> have passed in the last 12 hours or so. >> >> >> 1. Version control - this is proving a nightmare for everyone. I am >> sorry that so many of you have been struggling with this. I can see that >> we have had comments on the whole or part of the report from Bill, Susan, >> Peter, Lynn. I understand that Kathy was unable to see Bill's edits, so >> rolled back to an earlier version. There is also an incredibly annoying, >> persistent "comment" that is repeated about 100 times randomly throughout >> the document, and needs to be eliminated as it's confusing. >> >> *Action: Alice, please would you circulate the latest copy of the >> Report to the list as soon as possible, getting rid of highlighting except >> where it indicates a major disagreement, and leaving in all the comments >> from Bill, Susan, Peter and Lynn, but removing that buggy one. >> >> *2. Recommendations - Peter noticed that the ambit of the privacy >> recommendations seems to have changed since Dakar, without an explanation >> of how or why that change was made. Clearly, this will tend to reduce >> confidence, so my focus this morning will be to review and circulate a copy >> of the recommendations. I'm assisted in this by Kathy's work yesterday. >> She and I have been puzzling over how to clean up/wordsmith/ etc the >> recommendations, while respecting the negotiated text. This is a very >> difficult task. There are also new recommendations on proxies, the one >> from Lutz on common interface, and one which I put in about the Whois Data >> Reminder Policy (from the compliance letter). >> >> *Action: I will review the latest draft recommendations, and compare >> with the Dakar text. I will circulate a clean and marked up copy, with the >> latest versions of the recommendations, and an explanation for what has >> changed and why. >> >> *3. Deadline. I'm not prepared to give up yet! This is our draft >> report. It is not our final version. I will call it at 5pm UTC today. I >> want us to make every effort to get this out when we said we would. I >> really believe we can do this. >> >> Kind regards >> >> 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. >> >> ------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > -- * * 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. -- * * 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

Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN
by Lutz Donnerhacke Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Proposal: Summary: ICANN should set up and maintain a web interface to access all the WHOIS services in order to ease access to the WHOIS data. Presumption: The AoC requires 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." Observation: An User Insight Report came up with the following results: + Almost nobody is aware of whois + Almost nobody is able to query a whois server correctly + Whois queries were done on websites which occur first in the search engine results. Usually those pages are overloaded with advertisments. Detailed recommendation: ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual website to allow "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information" even for those people which have problems with the plain WHOIS protocol. The WHOIS information should be collected by following the thin WHOIS approach starting at whois.iana.org. The service should display the contractural relationships which are revealed by the WHOIS referals in a clear and understandable way. The results should be mark clearly the relevant information "including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact" data. The server needs to be run by ICANN itself, because the "timely, unrestricted and public access" is usually rate limited, stripped or even blocked by the various WHOIS server administrators for uncontractual third party access. ICANN itself is the only party having the power to overcome those limits using its contratual compliance.

4 4

Re: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations and general update
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

2 2

Re: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

1 0