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

Adobe link + material
by Alice Jansen Nov. 23, 2011

Nov. 23, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Please join the adobe room:http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Attached you will find a compilation of conference call material. 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

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Overview of Consumer Research Study - working draft in progress
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 23, 2011

Nov. 23, 2011

2 2

Reminder - Call today @ 20:00 UTC
by Alice Jansen Nov. 23, 2011

Nov. 23, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Your next conference call is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 23 November 2011** 20:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Team+ConfCall&is… PASSWORD: 27318 followed by # Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+24+-+23+November+2011 Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Audio-cast (silent observers): http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u Dial-in numbers: Please find below a table which encapsulates dial-in numbers for your countries of residence. Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list which is available at: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Australia 1 800 009 820 1 800 036 775 Sydney T +61 290372962 Melbourne T +61 399996500 Brisbane T +61 731777546 Austria L - 0 800 295 858 M - 0 800 295 138 T - +43 720 882 638 Belgium L - 0800 79210 M – 0800 79218 T - +32 78 480 286 Brazil L - 0800 891 1597 M - 0800 891 1598 T - +55 613 717 2040 Canada 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 France 0800 90 25 56 T - +33 170618347 Germany L - 0800 1016 120 G - M 0800 1016 124 Russia 8 10 8002 535 3011 T - +7 499 650 7835 United Kingdom 0800 032 6646 T - +44 207 099 0867 United States 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 T – local toll number ; M – mobile preferred number ; L – landline preferred number Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for this call. Thank you, Very best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org> Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium -- 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

4 3

Overview of Consumer Research Study - working draft in progress
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 23, 2011

Nov. 23, 2011

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations
by James M. Bladel Nov. 23, 2011

Nov. 23, 2011

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations
by James M. Bladel Nov. 23, 2011

Nov. 23, 2011

2 1

CENTR information on ccTLD practices
by Emily Taylor Nov. 23, 2011

Nov. 23, 2011

Hi all CENTR has very kindly provided the WHOIS Review Team with anonymised data about its membership's WHOIS practices. It should be noted that CENTR's membership extends beyond the geographical region of Europe, and so the data provided does not simply reflect practices within the EU data protection environment. Attached are two anonymised reports. One provides information on what information is public, and what can be hidden The other provides information about when "opted out" information will be provided to third parties. Kathy - you kindly volunteered to bring on the ccTLD appendix, and I believe that this will provide a good evidence base to start off our narrative. This can then be supplemented by individual case studies which registries have chosen to share with us, and perhaps a few of the anecdotal comments from the public sessions eg in Singapore. I'm sure that I speak for the entire WHOIS Review Team in warmly thanking the CENTR community and staff for sharing this information with us. 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

Copy of User Insight slides at Marina Del Ray meeting
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 23, 2011

Nov. 23, 2011

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
by James M. Bladel Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
by Smith, Bill Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

Seth, I agree with your analysis that certain "changes" can be made through a PDP while a given contract is in force. As I recall, those changes are limited and can be contested by the contracted parties. I don't think there is any way ICANN can "force" an amendment or change on a contracted party at any time, even through a PDP. The contracted party is under no obligation to sign a contract it finds unacceptable and similarly is free to terminate the agreement if it finds PDP amendments unacceptable. I think it is important that we recognize the rights, responsibilities, and authority of the various parties engaged at ICANN, and that the Board in fact has the authority to establish contract terms. No other party has that authority though we all share a responsibility for recommending modifications that are in the public interest. Bill On Nov 22, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Seth M Reiss wrote: > I am wondering if the distinction being made and perhaps missed here is that > changes to the RAA can be made mid-stream through the PDP but otherwise, a > change can only be implemented when the term of a given RAA runs out and is > up for renewal. In other words, ICANN cannot force an amendment on a > registrar until that registrar's RAA is up for renewal, but a registrar's > obligations under the contract can be amended through a PDP because the > current RAA states that it may. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, Bill > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:31 AM > To: denise.michel(a)icann.org > Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB > > Denise, > > Thanks for the information on the various agreements and how ICANN, the > .org, recommends changes to those agreements. I think these processes are > useful and consistent with the multi-stakeholder model, but I have yet to > see anything in the Bylaws or any policy document that requires contract > changes through a PDP or any other "community process". > > Perhaps I am making to fine a point of this, but I consider it an important > one, and that is that only the Board has the authority to enter into > contracts. It may delegate that authority, typically for the purposes of > negotiation and expedited execution. Further, in the case of ICANN, the > corporation, it has a responsibility to enter into contracts that are in the > public interest (writ large). > > Bill > > On Nov 21, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Denise Michel wrote: > > James - I'd be happy to contribute to this discussion. > > All - > > There are multiple ways to change the Registrar Accreditation Agreement > (RAA) and the various Registry agreements (see current list at > <http://www.icann.org/en/registries/agreements.htm>). > > The RAA can be changed through the GNSO's policy development process (PDP) > and through contract-based options. (See attached Policy Staff paper I sent > a few weeks ago that details these processes; different issues and processes > yield different results -- e.g. immediate mandatory change, change upon > contract renewal, etc.). RAA changes are posted for public comment and > approved by the Board. > > The existing gTLD Registries are governed by the individual Registry or > Sponsorship Agreements (linked above). Staff works with the individual gTLD > Registry to review and change the provisions of their Registry or > Sponsorship Agreement. Changes are posted for public comment and ultimately > approved by the Board. There also is precedent for a PDP aimed at changes > to existing registry contracts (see > <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/>), but this is the exception. > In addition, a Registry may file an RSEP application to add a new service > (and change its contract) (information on this is posted at > <http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/>). Finally, as you've discussed, > the Applicant Guidebook contains obligations that will be incorporated in > new gTLD registry agreements. > > Please let me know if you need more information. > > Regards, > Denise > > On Thursday, November 17, 2011, James M. Bladel > <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: >> I don't think I'm covering this topic adequately. Denise, perhaps you > could weigh in on Bill's questions? >> >> J. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB >> From: "Smith, Bill" > <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> >> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:56 pm >> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> >> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, > "rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>" >> <rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> >> >> James, >> >> Thanks for the quick reply. >> >> Sorry to be slow, but I still don't see where "contract modification" > requires a PDP (and Issues Report, etc.). The section you referenced > describes how new specifications and policies are developed, not how > contracts are amended. >> >> As best I can tell, it's up to the ICANN Board to make the determination > on contract language. >> >> Bill >> >> On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:42 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: >> >> Bill: >> >> This is described in Section 4 of the RAA. Here's a quick link: > http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#4 >> >> >> J. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB >> From: "Smith, Bill" > <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>><http://bill.sm > ith(a)paypal-inc.com/>> >> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:38 pm >> To: "James M. Bladel" > <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com > <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>> >> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi > <susank(a)fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>><mailto:susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb. > com>>>, > "rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org< > mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>>" >> > <rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org > <mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>>> >> >> James, >> >> I agree on the need for consensus re our recommendations. >> >> Could you point me to the language that says the only way to modify a > Contracted Party contract is through the PDP. I haven't been able to locate > that in the Bylaws or the GNSO PDP. I'm sure it's somewhere but I can't find > the policy or process document that states this. >> >> Bill >> >> On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:46 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: >> >> Hi folks: >> >> Reading this thread (and reflecting on the work Susan and I are doing > w.r.t. Proxy services), I am reminded of the limited nature of this Review > Team in making its recommendations. Like my favorite game show "Jeopardy," > it's not enough to have the correct answer. The format of the response (in > our case, recommendation) is equally important. >> >> Bearing this in mind, I submit that recommendations should include the > following elements: >> (1) Target (To whom are we directing the recommendation?) >> (2) Mechanism (By what means will the recommended action be implemented?) >> (3) Timeframe (What is the deadline for action? Note that in ICANN as well > as the general world, if something is left open-ended, it will never be > completed.) >> (4) Communication, Measurement & Follow-up (Was implementation complete? > Did it work? What can the next WHOIS RT take away from it?) >> >> Note that if we are describing actions that would create new obligations > for Contracted Parties (Registries & Registrars), we must reference the GNSO > Policy Development Process (PDP, Annex A in the ICANN Bylaws) as part of our > recommendation, the first step of which is requesting an Issues Report. This > is the only way to create new obligations for contracted parties. >> >> So, instead of: >> "Registrars should fix Problem X." >> >> A proper recommendation might look like: >> "No later than Jul 2012, the ICANN Board should request a PDP Issues > Report to examine the potential actions Registrars can take to address > Problem X." >> >> Also want to re-iterate that divided recommendations will most likely die > on the table when presented to the Board. To ensure that each and every > recommendation becomes reality, we must be unanimous in our presentation. If > we aren't there yet with some of our recs, then we have to walk them back > together until we can find middle ground (similar to what Susan and I are > doing w.r.t. Proxy). >> >> Thanks-- >> >> J. >> >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB >> From: Susan Kawaguchi > <susank(a)fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>><mailto:susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb. > com>>><mailto:susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>><http://susank@fb.com/>>&g > t; >> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 12:00 pm >> To: Kathy Kleiman > <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>><mailto:kathy@kathykl > eiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mai > lto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>><http://kathy@kathykleiman.com/>>>, >> > "rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org< > mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@ica > nn.org>><http://rt4-whois@icann.org/>>" > <rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org > <mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>>><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@i > cann.org>><http://rt4-whois@icann.org/>>> >> >> Hi Kathy, >> >> Please see my comments below. >> From: Kathy Kleiman > [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>] >> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:56 AM >> To: > rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org<m > ailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@ican > n.org>><http://rt4-whois@icann.org/>>; Susan Kawaguchi >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB >> >> Dear Susan, >> I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the > board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with the > searches was painful. Knowing that you struggle with this issue every day is > even worse. >> >> However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries I > don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as many > questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net. If your > assertion is true then we obviously have much bigger issues to deal with but > I have followed the new gTld process from the very beginning, through all > the versions and discussions of the AGB, had internal technical people > evaluate the processes ICANN is advocating and have never heard a concern > that Specification 4 would cause instability to the internet. >> >> To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of > Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both managed > the database for .COM, .ORG and NET, and also registered domain names into > it. >> >> In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4 > registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more competition > in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of ICANN's work to > introduce competition into the domain name space), the registrars began > banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then purchased by > Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of the Whois > information. It was an element of the competitive nature of the new domain > name space to break up the information so one registry would not own and > control it all. Completely understand the history but the need to create > competition within the registrar space is no longer an issue. What we are > facing now is a real need for the internet consumer to be able to easily > look up a domain name registration. Whether that is converting the .com and > .net registries to a Thick Whois model or ICANN creating a centralized WHOIS > data base by collecting all the WHOIS ! > information from each registrar I could advocate for either option. (I > think Lutz is drafting a proposal for this option) If the team does not > address this issue, in my mind, we have not done our job. It is crucial that > the information for a domain name is available and accurate (privacy and > proxy registrations aside as that is still viable WHOIS information). >> >> The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real > concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 100 > million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be able to > bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the registration > business, as well as creating a series of additional business functions. > It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we heard from the Registrars in > the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore with us) Registrars remain very > committed to this model, and for legitimate reasons. This is a redherring. > There are many ways that they all collect competitive data and having one > source that is accurate, available and searchable would benefit the internet > consumers in general and not the smaller segment of just registrars or > registries . >> >> Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous. When > the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after competitive > applications), among the first things it had to do was convert the ORG > registrations to thick ones. There were only a few million registrations at > the time and it was still an enormous and delicate task. It was a huge > moment. I understand for a small company transitioning databases can be > harrowing but Verisign is a well funded, large organization and well > equipped to scope out the process before hand and put all the necessary > safeguards in place. Truly 100 million records is not that significant any > more when you look at the large internet companies and how many users or > accounts that are created every day. >> >> Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to > think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration. These > websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability of the > Net would be one to study closely and carefully. The difficulties, not to > mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous. The Thin Whois database > could continue to exist to address any identified issues with security and > stability of the internet. I am fine with the requirement to run both Thick > and Thin. The ICANN centralized database proposal would essentially do that. >> >> Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our > fact-based research and assessment. Yes, I really think there are. >> >> We have some key things we have agreed to: >> 1) Findability - thin registration data should be findable. That's a > technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin > Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is much > we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud Investigators > (public and private) to find the data we need. Let's include some > recommendations on these. I have never had an issue (to date) with finding > Thin registration data. Verisign data is always available and probably > always accurate. But it is not enough data. We need the THICK WHOIS data to > protect the internet consumer. >> 2) Access & Accuracy - as we have already been discussing and which are > key. >> >> One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this > kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a > timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and > recommendations. They, together with the Community which must review and > accept their solutions, must move quickly. Without specific recommendations > and ( I agree with you) a specific time frame I do not have any faith in > solving this issue. >> I do agree that we should not get to deep into the details but if we do > not provide clear findings and actionable recommendations I fear we will be > arguing about this for the next decade. >> >> >> But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer. >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> >> >> >> >> : >> Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week. >> >> From: Susan Kawaguchi >> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM >> To: > rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org<m > ailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@ican > n.org>><http://rt4-whois@icann.org/>> >> Subject: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB >> >> Attached is a draft of recommendations for adopting Specification 4 of the > AGB for existing gTlds. >> >> At the end of the document are rough thoughts on ICANN creating a > voluntary program for registrars to be considered A list registrars. This > would recognize the responsible registars and the proactive service they > provide. >> >> I will not be on the call tonight since it is 3 am my time. Not sure > anything I would say would make any sense. >> >> Susan Kawaguchi >> Domain Name Manager >> >> Facebook Inc. >> 1601 California Avenue >> Palo Alto, CA >> >> Phone - 650 485-6064<tel:650%20485-6064> >> Cell - 650 387 3904<tel:650%20387%203904> >> >> Please note my email address has changed to > skawaguchi(a)fb.com<mailto:skawaguchi@fb.com><mailto:skawaguchi@fb.com<mailto: > skawaguchi(a)fb.com>><mailto:skawaguchi@fb.com<mailto:skawaguchi@fb.com>><http > ://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><mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org<m > ailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org>><mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@ican > n.org>><http://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><mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org<m > ailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org>><mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@ican > n.org>><http://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><mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org<m > ailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org>><mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@ican > n.org>><http://Rt4-whois@icann.org/>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >> >> >> > <Final RAA Discussion Paper 13-10-11v3 > (1).pdf>_______________________________________________ > 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 > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
by James M. Bladel Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

4 3

FW: WHOIS RT: IDN thread
by Sarmad Hussain Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

Dear All, Here is an interim version of the IDN section with three recommendations at the end. This is for the discussion on the call tomorrow. Regards, Sarmad

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment Period RE: Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois
by James M. Bladel Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

1 0

Current recommendations
by Alice Jansen Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, A basic compilation of agreed upon recommendations is attached for your convenience. The second attachment is the same document lightly edited by Emily to eliminate redundancies. These documents may be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+Recommendations Please review both and email any feedback you may have. 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

1 0

Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment Period RE: Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

And as if to read our minds, the GNSO is working on the Thick Whois/Thin Whois problems. A very good step for them to take. FYI, Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment Period RE: Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:47:16 -0800 From: Robin Gross <robin(a)IPJUSTICE.ORG> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin(a)IPJUSTICE.ORG> To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Begin forwarded message: > *From: *Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> > *Date: *November 21, 2011 3:07:29 PM PST > *To: *liaison6c <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org > <mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>> > *Subject: **[liaison6c] Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois* > > Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois Comment Period Deadlines^ > > Important Information LinksPublic Comment Box > <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/thick-whois-preliminary-report-21nov…> > *Open Date:*21 November 2011To Submit Your Comments (Forum) > <mailto:thick-whois-preliminary-report@icann.org> > *Close Date:*30 December 2011*Time (UTC):*23:59 > View Comments Submitted > <http://forum.icann.org/lists/thick-whois-preliminary-report/> > *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* > > ICANN Staff is seeking comments on itsPreliminary Issue Report on > 'Thick' Whois > <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/preliminary-report-thick-whois-21nov11-e…>[PDF, > 635 KB]. Specifically, this Report addresses not only a possible > requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of > the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP), but also considers any > other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur > outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding > whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would > be desirable or not. > > The Preliminary Issue Report informs the GNSO Council concerning the > possible requirement of 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs in > advance of the Council's vote on whether to commence a Policy > Development Process (PDP) on this issue. > > This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the > ICANN community to provide its views on this topic and on whether a > Policy Development Process should be initiated to consider the > requirement of 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs. This Preliminary > Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted > through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the > GNSO Council for its consideration.*Section II: Background* > > In the context of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A as > well as the Part B Working Group, the issue of 'thick' Whois was > discussed and it was noted that: “The benefit would be that in a thick > registry one could develop a secure method for a gaining registrar to > gain access to the registrant contact information. Currently there is > no standard means for the secure exchange of registrant details in a > thin registry. In this scenario, disputes between the registrant and > admin contact could be reduced, as the registrant would become the > ultimate approver of a transfer”. At the same time it was noted that > even though requiring 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs would have > benefits in the context of transfers, it would be important to explore > 'any other potential positive or negative effects that are likely to > occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account'. As a > result, the IRTP Part B Working Group recommended requesting: “an > Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent > gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development > Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' > WHOIS or all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also > consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to > occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when > deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent > gTLDs would be desirable or not”. This recommendation that was adopted > by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 September 2011 > (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) > > *Section III: Document and Resource Links* > > Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois > <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/preliminary-report-thick-whois-21nov11-e…>[PDF, > 635 KB] > > *Section IV: Additional Information*None*Staff Contact:*Marika > Konings*Email:*policy-staff@icann.org > <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20Thick%20Whois%20public%20comment%20period> > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> > http://gnso.icann.org IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>

1 0

UserInsight study summary final 11211.docx
by Susan Kawaguchi Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

Hello Emily, Lynn, Seth and I have finalized the summary of the Userinsight study. Please see the attached document. Susan

2 1

Draft report - 21 Nov
by Alice Jansen Nov. 21, 2011

Nov. 21, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the most recent version of the draft report – 21 November – which reflects Emily's comments on the Definitions section and includes amendments to the introduction and scope of work sections. This document is 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

1 0

ccTLDs - consolidation
by Alice Jansen Nov. 21, 2011

Nov. 21, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's request, please find attached a v2 of Kim's document. Note that this version also includes the Nominet report as well as public comments. This document is available on your private wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/ccTLDs On your private wiki your will also find a compilation of all the feedback you received in Singapore: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Singapore+feedback Thanks, 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

2 2

Re: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - ConfCall 23 November
by James M. Bladel Nov. 21, 2011

Nov. 21, 2011

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope__Defintiions_-_a_newly_expanded_chapter (2)(smr rev) (Repaired)
by Emily Taylor Nov. 20, 2011

Nov. 20, 2011

Hi - Just came across this in my drafts folder dated 8 November. Not sure if I sent it through. Emily ----------- Hi all Following up on Seth's editing job, and other comments, I have reviewed the text, and made some edits, which are tracked in the attached. I think this revised chapter is good, and should replace the one in the consolidated draft report. Best, Emily On 20 October 2011 14:08, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> wrote: > Many thanks, Sharon, for your prompt response. > I have edited the report accordingly. > The latest version is now available on the wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report > > Very best > > Alice > > From: "LEMON, Sharon" <sharon.lemon(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:14:54 -0700 > To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, Kathy Kleiman < > kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> > Cc: 'Emily Taylor' <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu>, Sharon Lemon < > sharonchallis(a)aol.com> > Subject: RE: Scope__Defintiions_-_a_newly_expanded_chapter (2)(smr rev) > (Repaired) > > *NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED * > Alice, > > Thank you, that is very thoughtful of you. I have no problems with Seth's > changes to the Law Enforcement defintion . Emily worked on the other > definitions, so will have a view on Seth's work on those. > > Sharon > > > > Sharon LEMON OBE > Deputy Director > Cyber and Forensics > Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) > 07768 290902 > 0207 855 2800 > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Alice Jansen [mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org<alice.jansen(a)icann.org>] > > *Sent:* 20 October 2011 13:06 > *To:* Kathy Kleiman > *Cc:* 'Emily Taylor'; LEMON, Sharon; Sharon Lemon > *Subject:* Re: Scope__Defintiions_-_a_newly_expanded_chapter (2)(smr rev) > (Repaired) > > Hello there, > > I have posted Seth's edits on the wiki in the chapter section > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Scope+Chapter. > Seth seems to be proposing significant changes to Sharon's definition > section. Hence I would rather have Sharon's greenlight/feedback before > proceeding with the editing of the master document. > Sharon, what are your views on Seth's amendments? > > Thanks for your understanding, > > Best > > Alice > > From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:32:42 -0700 > To: Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com> > Cc: 'Emily Taylor' <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu>, "'LEMON, Sharon'" < > sharon.lemon(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk>, Sharon Lemon <sharonchallis(a)aol.com>, > Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: Scope__Defintiions_-_a_newly_expanded_chapter (2)(smr rev) > (Repaired) > > Thanks Seth and safe travels! You worry about arriving safely, and > we'll worry about pulling all your good work into the report. > Hope it's a good trip and thanks, > Kathy > : > > OK, I am about to jump on my plane. I have about 36 hours of planes and > airports ahead of me – I wonder if this might be an ICANN record?**** > > **** > > I think I addressed Emily’s concerns, which I thought were good ones. I > am not sure how to integrate this or post it to the private WIKI so if it’s > appropriate to post, perhaps one of you could do that for me.**** > > **** > > See you in Dakar.**** > > **** > > *Seth M. Reiss* > > Seth M. Reiss, AAL, ALLLC**** > > *dba** **Le**x**-IP.com*** > > Intellectual Property & Internet Law**** > > 3770 Lurline Drive | Honolulu, HI 96816** > > (: 808.521.7080 | 7: 808.675.5805 | *: *seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com* | website: > www.lex-ip.com**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* Emily Taylor [mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu>] > *Sent:* Sunday, October 16, 2011 9:58 PM > *To:* Seth M Reiss > *Cc:* LEMON, Sharon; sharonchallis(a)aol.com; Kathy Kleiman > *Subject:* Re: Scope__Defintiions_-_a_newly_expanded_chapter (2)(smr rev) > (Repaired)**** > > **** > > Hi all > > Thanks Seth - I think this section is taking shape. > > Two general points: > > 1. We need somewhere a link (to an annex? or something) which explains > that we consulted on the definitions, got feedback, and took it into > account - these are the product of our own discussions and community input. > > 2. Acknowledge SSAC as the source of those final definitions. Either > delete the acronyms, or else say that we found the concepts useful but the > terms not so much - because they are so similar to one another. So, in the > report we talk about the protocol, the service and the whois data. I had > an offiline with Jim Galvin about this, and he fully understood that the > definition labels (if I can put it like that) were not that helpful. It > doesn't detract from the fact that the descriptions are good. > > Kind regards > > Emily > > > **** > > On 17 October 2011 01:55, Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com> wrote:**** > > OK, here I go trying to step on toes. Let me know if it hurts J. **** > > **** > > Instead of reworking the definitions in Sharon’s original section, I > worked on Kathy’s rework of Sharon’s section and added in the definitions > that I think Wilfried may have developed from the SSAC report.**** > > **** > > I noted a discrepancy in the definition of consumer from Sharon’s to > Kathy’s draft. Not sure if I am missing something here.**** > > **** > > Hope this helps.**** > > **** > > *Seth M. Reiss***** > > Seth M. Reiss, AAL, ALLLC**** > > *dba** **Le**x**-IP.com***** > > Intellectual Property & Internet Law**** > > 3770 Lurline Drive | Honolulu, HI 96816**** > > (: 808.521.7080 | 7: 808.675.5805 | *: *seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com* | website: > www.lex-ip.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.**** > > **** > > > > -- > > > > > This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government > Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In > case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or > recorded for legal purposes. > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. > Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the > subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and > without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the > Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files > transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to > whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please > contact the sender as soon as possible. > > This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from > disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be > subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be > unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for > disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of > contact, by email on PICUEnquiries(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning > 0870 268 8677. > > > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. > Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the > subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and > without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the > Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files > transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to > whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please > contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government > Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide > in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On > leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or > recorded for legal purposes. > -- * * 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

Agenda - ConfCall 23 November
by Alice Jansen Nov. 18, 2011

Nov. 18, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, As you know, your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 23 November at 20:00 UTC. Please find enclosed the agenda: 1. Roll-call & Apologies 2. Preliminary reports to adopt: Dakar meeting & 9 November conference call 3. Review IDN recommendations (Michael & Sarmad) 4. Sign-off the letter to compliance and discuss sending modalities 5. Review Emily's suggestions for cuts 6. Review and discuss James & Susan's proposals on Proxies 7. Discuss the thread on Thick/Thin or repository of WHOIS 8. Discuss any comments on the Policy section 9. Agree/discuss text on the consumer research (Lynn, Seth &Susan) 10. A.O.B It may also be found on the public wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+24+-+23+November+2011 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 0

Clean & Consolidated - Draft report - V1
by Alice Jansen Nov. 18, 2011

Nov. 18, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's request, please find attached a clean and consolidated V1 of the draft report. Note that this document may also be found 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

1 0

CENTR WHOIS survey information?
by Emily Taylor Nov. 18, 2011

Nov. 18, 2011

Hi Patrick I hope you are well. You may recall that a couple of months ago, we were in correspondence about whether CENTR could provide any anonymised data with regard to WHOIS policy and implementation to the ICANN WHOIS Review Team, which I chair. You indicated that you would be prepared to share some information with us. We are aiming to finalise our draft report by the end of this month, and therefore I would greatly appreciate if you could indicate when you will be able to share the information with us. Kind regards Emily Taylor Chair, WHOIS Review Team -- * * 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 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
by James M. Bladel Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
by James M. Bladel Nov. 17, 2011

Nov. 17, 2011

3 2