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

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

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