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

Recommendations - complete with the "common interface" one
by Emily Taylor Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Hi there Lynn spotted that I had failed to include Lutz's proposal on a common interface. Looking at Lutz's proposed language, I think it goes into much more operational detail than we have generally done in these recommendations. I have therefore stripped it down considerably in this draft. The only comments I have had so far are from Bill (indicated general agreement, but finding the new language on proxy voluntary best practices difficult), and Lynn who is OK with them. Any more please? 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

Recommendations - updated language SOURCED
by Emily Taylor Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

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… Recommendations discussed in Dakar), and this https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recom… 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 • 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

FW: FW: Whois RT Draft report
by LEMON, Sharon Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED All, A late arrival from Canada - I can't find the tracked changes - does anyone know what this means? These suggested corrections are reflected in the Word Tracking feature under the #000035590 code. The Comments are identified more clearly (under Fred and my name). In fact, I can't even open the document, computer says 'No'. The only other point they make is that the document is too long. Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 Hello Shona/Gary, Further to your earlier message please be advised that Lieutenant Frédérick (Fred) Gaudreau, Sûreté du Québec, and I have reviewed the WHOIS Policy RT - Draft document and have identified suggested corrections/comments that we would respectfully submit for your consideration. These suggested corrections are reflected in the Word Tracking feature under the #000035590 code. The Comments are identified more clearly (under Fred and my name). Please note that we did not have sufficient time to review the Appendices document. We recognize the importance of this document and fully appreciate everyone's efforts in putting this together. However we would humbly submit that perhaps the document would have more impact if it were strategically focused to within a 15-20 page document. The Appendices document would also need to be downsized but it could include additional information currently in the main draft Policy document. We feel this would ensure to highlight the main issues and this would in turn ensure to provide the reader with all the relevant information surrounding the WHOIS issue. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Marc S/Sgt Marc Moreau, s-é-m Royal Canadian Mounted Police/Gendarmerie royale du Canada Strategic Communications and Liaison Officer, Technological Crime Branch, Spécialiste en Communication et Agent de liaison, Sous-direction de la criminalité technologique, 1426 St. Joseph Blvd., Rm 2200 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2 Ph. (613) 993-6011 Fax (613) 993-2963>>> "McINTOSH, Shona" <shona.mcintosh(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> 11/25/2011 8:59 AM >>> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Dear All Please see attached; the latest version of the Whois Review Team Report. Please can you have a read, and make any comments you feel necessary. Instructions for comment: Rather than track changes, can any changes please be inserted directly into the text, highlighted in yellow and your initials added at the end? The deadline for this back to me / Gary is GMT 1200 on 29th November. Apologies for the tight timescale. Shona McIntosh l Staff Officer to Sharon Lemon | Serious Organised Crime Agency l +44(0)20 78552941 07717347907 | shona.mcintosh(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk 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. 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. 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

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

Nov. 30, 2011

2 1

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

Nov. 30, 2011

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.

2 2

Working on Final Edits
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

3 2

Hate to say this...
by Smith, Bill Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

But I don't see how we're going to get this out tomorrow. As best I can tell text is still coming in and some fairly serious edits, just to remove highlighting need to occur. Then there are the adds/deletes/mods that still have to happen along with a set of judgment calls between competing suggestions. It turns out Kathy was unable to use the version that I circulated and has gone back to the one posted by Alice earlier today. Kathy will be adding Chaps 7, 8, and 9 to that earlier version and I'm hoping that we can then make a push for a "final" edit towards a clean version. Based on my work today to try and clean things up, I think a minimum of five hours is required just to deal with highlighting and making "obvious" edits. Then we have controversial edits, and they probably need to be done by at least a small group (better to share the blame/decision). Lastly, there are style inconsistencies between the chapters that should be addressed, but I think that's perhaps best done after everything else to minimize effort. I think we're looking at a good three days of work at minimum, and I'm offering myself, fulltime on this 'til it's done. One caveat is that we're going to need to reduce the number of software versions, simultaneous edits, etc. in order to pull this off - and turn track changes on at some point soon. The work that has gone into this is phenomenal and I'm amazed at quantity and quality of what I see. Getting it right, or at least "righter" is still going to take some time in my opinion... not to mention some of the "issues" still outstanding.

1 0

And a backup copy
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Since we are having trouble with systems, I am sending out back up copies. The full report, per my earlier message. p.s. Please note this version is not yet posted on wiki since Alice is still asleep :-) --

1 0

Version control - current draft
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Dear All, Attached please find a full version of the report. It includes: - Chapter 7, Understanding the Needs of Stakeholders - Chapter 8, Gap Analysis - Chapter 9, Recommendations - The revised Consumer Survey section (now at the end of Chapter 7) - The new IDN recommendations (as revised by Sarmad, Michael and Kathy) - All built on the version of the Report sent by Alice this AM and posted on the private Wiki. (Note: Chapters 7, 8,9 are the ones Emily and I sent out together -- the splitting out of the one massive Gap Analysis chapter into three different segments. Greatly appreciate all of Peter's work on this.) I would like to share a special apology to Bill. Due to some incompatibilities between systems, I could not use the file he sent out tonight with editing changes in it. I tried really hard to do so; I so much appreciate his work! I had to roll back to the version Alice sent out earlier in the day. If someone could send me the current version of Lutz's recommendation, I would appreciate it. Best and good night, Kathy --

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by Smith, Bill Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

If we can somehow get to what Seth proposes, I'm all for it. Perpetuating the mess is unacceptable and while we may not be able to unravel things, ICANN must find a way. On Nov 29, 2011, at 6:54 PM, Seth M Reiss wrote: > Susan > > I have not studied the cases you cite (and I probably should) but I think > the underlying problem is that ICANN tried, unsuccessfully, to regulate the > proxy industry via, e.g., RAA 3.7.7.3. If ICANN had not given some > recognition to the proxy industry through RAA 3.7.7.3, then I am not sure > how the Ninth Circuit would have come out the way it did. In other words, > if you do not recognize proxies, then anyone who decides to become a proxy > is the registrant and bears all liability for how the registered domain name > is used. > > Because ICANN has mucked up the waters trying, unsuccessfully, to regulate > proxy services, I agree ICANN now has to fix the problem in an affirmative > manner. We need to tell ICANN this but this does not mean ICANN is > necessarily stuck with regulating an industry that perhaps should not exist > or be given recognition. And we are not making policy or law, just telling > ICANN what we think needs fixing and in what manner. If we tell it to fix > the proxy situation so proxy services are no longer recognized in any form, > and so that if a registrar or reseller decides to offer such services they > will have to take responsibility for any and all liability resulting from > the use of the domain name, then ICANN with the assistance of their > remarkable staff, advisors and counsel will have to study the cases you cite > and other applicable circumstances to figure out how to get there from here. > I am confident there is a way, and I am also confident that with the benefit > of all our thoughts and discussions, they may get it right :). > > Seth > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:55 PM > To: Nettlefold, Peter; 'lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com'; > 'emily(a)emilytaylor.eu'; 'rt4-whois(a)icann.org' > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > > Hi Peter, > > I have continued to give the proxy issue much thought. I am completely > opposed to removing the language about proxies from the RAA and leaving it > at that. I feel that we are skirting a major issue. I found two US court > cases that are relevant to this issue. I realize that court rulings depend > completely on jurisdiction so this may not apply to other countries. > > The first is right on point Balsam v. Tucows > http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8643528087906257613&hl=en&as_sdt > =2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr > > As I read this ruling, the plaintiff was trying to rely on 3.7.7.3 and hold > Tucows responsible for the use of the domain name that was a proxy > registration. The court relied on 5.10 of the RAA > > "5.10 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement shall not be construed to > create any obligation by either ICANN or Registrar to any non-party to this > Agreement, including any Registered Name Holder." > > The final paragraph in the court ruling is as follows > > "Given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we conclude that the "No > Third Party Beneficiaries" clause unambiguously manifests an intent not to > create any obligations to third parties through the RAA. See Cal. Civ.Code § > 1638 ("If contractual language is clear and explicit and does not involve an > absurdity, the plain meaning governs."); see also Register.com, Inc. v. > Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 400 (2d Cir.2004) (the RAA's "No Third-Party > Beneficiaries" provision "expressly and intentionally exclude[s] non-parties > from claiming rights under it in court proceedings"). Accordingly, Balsam's > claims, which are entirely dependent on his claimed status as a third-party > beneficiary,[3] must fail." > > At least in California court and maybe in US court in general the 3.7.7.3 > language is not going to hold up. It definitely would not have a chilling > effect and serve the purpose of immediately improving the relay and reveal > process we so desperately need with proxy registrations. > > Solid Host v. Namecheap http://www.circleid.com/pdf/solidhostnamecheap.pdf > > The 3.7.7.3 language was also asserted but it was the contributory > liability allegations > Based on California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"). "The court has > concluded that Solid Host's complaint adequately pleads a cybersquatting > claim against NameCheap on a contributory liability theory. > > > Neither of these cases were able to rely on the RAA language in my opinion > although as you know I am not an attorney. > > I revised the proxy recommendation I am proposing and inserted it into the > report yesterday and in giving it more thought I have shortened it once > again based on a earlier comment from James. > > All of this would be voluntary on the part of the proxy service provider. > > Definitions > A proxy service - we should use the agreed upon definition once we have it. > >> From 2009 RAA 1.20 "Affiliated Registrar" is another ICANN accredited > registrar that operates under a common controlling interest. > Affiliate retail proxy service provider is an entity that operates under a > common controlling interest of a registrar. " > Retail proxy service provider - provides a 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 - provides a 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. > > 1) a registrar is required to disclose their relationship with a > Retail proxy service provider to ICANN. > > 2) A retail proxy service provider should follow best practice > guidelines developed by the community. These may include the following: > > a. standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes; > > establish a standardized process for requesting contact information for a > proxy registration > > b. guidance on the appropriate level of publicly available information > on the registrant; > c. maintenance of a dedicated and available abuse point of contact; > d. public disclosure of contact details and the physical address of the > retail proxy service provider; and > e. validate registrant contact information. > 3. The best practice guidelines should be developed in close > consultation with the GAC, privacy advocates, law enforcement, and other > interested stakeholders. > 4. ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with > the retail service providers that adopt the best practices. > > Hope this helps to clarify my position. > > Susan > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:16 PM > To: 'lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'emily(a)emilytaylor.eu'; > 'rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org'; 'rt4-whois(a)icann.org' > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > > Hello all, > > I'll be trying to read the key parts of the report today while I'm in > meetings. > > Thanks to all, as I agree we've made a huge amount of progress. Special > thanks also to Emily for keeping this whole show moving. > > That said, there still seem to be some open issues which need to be resolved > before we release - particularly our direction on proxies. I'll be > monitoring emails today so will be interested to discuss where we go on that > issue, as it is clearly on of our most difficult, and equally one where the > community will be expecting us to provide direction. I think we all share a > common goal of improving the current situation and reducing the incidence > and risk of misuse, so I hope we can come forward with something strong on > this. > > I'm also interested in our timelines from here. How long will the report be > out for comment? When are we aiming to publish the final? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com > [mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 07:47 AM > To: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu>; rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org > <rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org>; rt4-whois(a)icann.org <rt4-whois(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? > > Thanks Emily for your endurance and pulling us through. Your request is > reasonable. > Lynn > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> > Sender: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:44:50 > To: <rt4-whois(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > 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. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Version control in progress
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Just a quick note to all still up that I am working on version control issues now. Will circulate something shortly. Best, Kathy --

1 0

Draft editing - removing yellow highlighting
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

1 0

Recommendations - here attached
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Hi All, To the Chapters 7 and 8 that Emily circulated today (an expansion of the Gap Analysis from one chapter into two to make it more readable), let me add Chapter 9, Recommendations. Chapter 9 is also separated out from the Gap Analysis to create a separate place for our Recommendations. The entire report leads up to them, and I guess they are the climax of our story. We worked hard to take our Dakar and MDR recommendations, remove duplicates, and clarify languages (so that all references are clear, etc.). There are still a few blanks to be filled in, so if you know the answers, please let the group know. Two copies attached: a "clean" one, and one with the full set of edits shown. I'll be online for awhile, so please let me know if you can't read the files. Best, Kathy --

2 2

ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now?
by Emily Taylor Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

Dear all Thank you for your dedication over the past few days. We have got through a quite amazing amount of work, from major redrafts of substantive sections, to great consensus building on recommendations, to individual comments on the report as a whole. We're not quite at my "Oscar-acceptance-speech-tears-of-gratitude-and-sincere-thanks-to-the-team-who-I-now-count-as-my-personal-friends" bit, but we're nearly there. With the increased pace of new drafts, I would like to set out a plan for how we get to closure, and release this DRAFT report tomorrow . - We're going to sign this off now by exception - if you're not commenting it means you're happy, and are assumed to have read it. - Remember, it's our draft report, and there will be opportunities to edit in future, but you should make sure you are comfortable, in particular with the *exec summary, findings, and recommendations.* - Open issues we need to close down are: (1) Definitions of law enf. and applicable laws. Minor changes requested by Peter - are we comfortable, or not? (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) (3) How much of the consumer chapter stays in the full report, and how much goes into an appendix. (4) Background on WHOIS chapter - does it stay where it is, or does it go into an appendix? (5) any final comments on the compliance letter, please? Alice, please can you produce a clean copy of this. *I NEED YOUR FINAL COMMENTS TOMORROW BEFORE 15:00 UTC so that they can be factored in.* For the West Coasters, that means today your time. On publication, I am still aiming to go for it tomorrow, with appendices to follow a week later. Alice, - Denise mentioned trying to schedule a couple of webinars, and a call with the Board to take them through the draft report in early December. Please can we try to schedule these. Thanks for staying with it, all. Another 24 hours or so, and then we can all have a large drink/non-alcoholic beverage/tuck into a lot of post-Thanksgiving cold turkey. Best wishes to all 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.

7 9

Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by James M. Bladel Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] NOTE: Draft report + appendices document - 29 November
by Alice Jansen Nov. 29, 2011

Nov. 29, 2011

Hi Seth! The two sets of recommendations are as follows: Privacy Services provide the Registrant's Name, but the Privacy Service's contact information. The Privacy Service passes on non-spam messages to the Registrant, particularly legal notices, acting as a type of “registered agent.” Proxy Services register the domain name and license it to another for use. Privacy services limit certain user details from WHOIS by offering alternate contact information and mail forwarding services, while not actually shielding the user’s identity. Proxy services have a third-party register domain names on the user’s behalf and then license the use of the domain name so that a third-party’s contact information (and not the licensee’s) is published in WHOIS. In the report: P.44-45 P.82 Thanks, 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 From: Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com<mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com>> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:34:00 -0800 To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>>, "rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>" <rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] NOTE: Draft report + appendices document - 29 November Alice Would it be possible to break out the 2 sets of privacy/proxy definitions with note in an email to the Team for feedback? I am not sure I am finding them in the document in the way you have described. Thanks. Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:19 AM To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] NOTE: Draft report + appendices document - 29 November Members, Note that the latest version of the draft report contains/reflects: * Susan's new set of comments (in addition to those incorporated yesterday); * Lutz' recommendation on a centralized WHOIS; * The 2 sets of privacy/proxy definitions along with a note asking you to decide which set you would like to adopt; * The prior-to-September Law Enforcement definition (with reference to an off-list discussion). This was added in parallel to the definition currently in the report. Note that the appendices document now includes: * Susan's example of a WHOIS look-up. Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 06:00:16 -0800 To: "rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>" <rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: Draft report + appendices document - 29 November Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the latest versions of the draft report and appendices document. Also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report Thanks, 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

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Consumer Trust Research Summary
by Emily Taylor Nov. 29, 2011

Nov. 29, 2011

Dear Lynn, Seth, and Susan Thank you. This draft is really coming together. Following on from an unrelated thread started by you, Lynn, and supported by Michael, I'd like to suggest that we take a close look at whether some of the detail (on methodology; countries surveyed; etc) from these pages might sit better in an appendix, to improve the flow of the whole report. We need the reasons why we did the study; that it was multi-national and multi-lingual, that it comprised both qual and quant. Then the findings, which are very economically written and lead in well to the recommendations. What do you think? Kind regards Emily On 29 November 2011 18:14, Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com> wrote: > Thank you Lynn.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2011 5:23 AM > *To:* Emily Taylor > *Cc:* rt4-whois(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Consumer Trust Research Summary**** > > ** ** > > Seth, Susan and I have been working via email due to our time zone > differences.**** > > I am waiting for Seth to confirm but believe we have come to an agreement > on our revisions and edits.**** > > **** > > Attached is our clean updated draft and our most recent marked up copy > with comments.**** > > **** > > Since we are so close to the deadline, I am taking the liberty of sending > this forward now.**** > > Lynn**** > > _______________________________________________ > 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.

2 1

Gap analysis - Chapters 7 and 8
by Emily Taylor Nov. 29, 2011

Nov. 29, 2011

Hi all Peter, Kathy and I have used the time differences between us since Saturday to iterate and re-iterate this section. Peter has meetings back to back for the rest of the week; Kathy and I have lost the ability to read, write or speak. Because there have now been so many changes (mainly of order, but some of text), I have tried to present this as a clean draft. However, it has not been possible for me to get rid of the highlighting (I think they've got stuck there because we're all working on different versions of Word, Open Office, Word for Mac etc). So, with apologies to Kathy and Peter I am sharing this now in order to get your comments before we sign off on the draft report tomorrow. Let me have any show stoppers, silly typos, or other comments as soon as you can. You will see that we've made an attempt to draw out some conclusions / findings, working from the Dakar draft on proxy/privacy, and plagiarising liberally from the Exec Summary. At the end are a load of definitions, which are clearly out of place where they are, but I just left them in so that we don't forget about them. Thank you. 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

DNS and WHOIS - How it Works
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 29, 2011

Nov. 29, 2011

3 2

Re: [Rt4-whois] DNS and WHOIS - How it Works
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 29, 2011

Nov. 29, 2011

1 0

Draft report + appendices document - 29 November
by Alice Jansen Nov. 29, 2011

Nov. 29, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the latest versions of the draft report and appendices document. Also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report Thanks, 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

2 2

Consumer Trust Research Summary
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 29, 2011

Nov. 29, 2011

3 2

Re: [Rt4-whois] Definitions of Privacy and Proxy
by James M. Bladel Nov. 29, 2011

Nov. 29, 2011

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Definitions of Privacy and Proxy
by Smith, Bill Nov. 29, 2011

Nov. 29, 2011

NORC's privacy definition, Dakar proxy definition? On Nov 28, 2011, at 9:58 PM, "Seth M Reiss" <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com<mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com>> wrote: I feel there is a very large problem with adopting the NORC report’s definition of proxy, although I find the NORC report’s definition of privacy service eloquent and accurate. The problem with the NORC report’s definition of proxy is that it designates the licensee as the “registrant” and in doing so, shifts all legal responsibilities and risks from the retail proxy service onto the hidden licensee. This definition is unfortunate, and can only lead to confusion and contradiction as we attempt to move forward. Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:40 PM To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Definitions of Privacy and Proxy Hello All, We seem to use varying definitions of privacy and proxy. I found these two definitions of both terms in our draft report In Chapter 4 page 43 u Privacy Services provide the Registrant's Name, but the Privacy Service's contact information. The Privacy Service passes on non-spam messages to the Registrant, particularly legal notices, acting as a type of “registered agent.” u Proxy Services register the domain name and license it to another for use. Chapter 8 Page 80 Privacy services limit certain user details from WHOIS by offering alternate contact information and mail forwarding services, while not actually shielding the user’s identity. Proxy services have a third-party register domain names on the user’s behalf and then license the use of the domain name so that a third-party’s contact information (and not the licensee’s) is published in WHOIS. I prefer the definitions from the Sept. 28, 2009 NORC report. Background To ensure that the community can identify who is responsible for a domain name, a registered name holder is required to provide and update, as needed, their contact information with their registrar of record. Registrars are required by ICANN to collect and provide free public access to the name of the registered domain name and its name servers and registrar, the date the domain was created and when its registration expires, and the contact information for the Registered Name Holder, the technical contact, and the administrative contact. In some instances, a registered name holder chooses to limit the amount of personal information that its registrar of record makes available to the public via a Whois query of their database. To do so, a registered name holder generally uses a privacy or proxy registration service. For the purpose of this study, the definitions of privacy and proxy services, as they relate to their use in the domain name system, are as follows: A privacy service provider offers the registrant an opportunity to register a domain name while concealing some personal identifying information listed in a WHOIS directory, such as his or her address, telephone number, or email address, by providing alternate contact information, often that of the privacy service provider. A proxy service provider registers the domain name on the registrant’s behalf and then licenses the use of the domain name to the registrant. The contact information in a WHOIS directory for a domain name registered with a proxy service is that of the proxy service provider. There may be an intentional use of the other definitions that I am not aware of but I feel we should provide an extremely clear definition of each term since they are currently used interchangeably in the marketplace. Susan Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi(a)fb.com<mailto:skawaguchi@fb.com> NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

1 0