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

Re: [Rt4-whois] Video for the website?
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Dec. 7, 2011

Dec. 7, 2011

2 2

Fwd: Draft report NOW PUBLIC - Public comment NOW OPEN
by Emily Taylor Dec. 7, 2011

Dec. 7, 2011

FYI - It was me who put in "incentivize", I'm sure ;-) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Disspain Chris <ceo(a)auda.org.au> Date: 7 December 2011 02:18 Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Draft report NOW PUBLIC - Public comment NOW OPEN To: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> Hail Emily and the whole WHOIS Review Team. Excellent work. Great report. Useful and challenging recommendations. Well done. Only downside is the use of the 'word' incentivize….aaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Cheers, Chris

1 0

Draft report NOW PUBLIC - Public comment NOW OPEN
by Alice Jansen Dec. 7, 2011

Dec. 7, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, My warmest congratulations to you on publishing your draft report. The public comment period is now open. Please refer to the announcement and public comment box at: * http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05dec11-en.htm * http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05dec11-… The hyperlink to the report is as follows: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05d… You will also find it attached to this email for your convenience (+ wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report) The next step for the Team is to finalize the Appendices (to be circulated by 12 December 2011). Appendices are available on the draft report wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Draft+report Note that I have pro-actively created a wiki page for your final report: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report Feel free to add any edits or ideas you may have for the final report on this page. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or concerns. 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

3 2

Video for the website?
by Emily Taylor Dec. 6, 2011

Dec. 6, 2011

Hi Lynn Thanks for all your work on the draft report, and the consumer study. Do you remember that we discussed publishing one of the videos from the qual. study, showing people doing a WHOIS search? Did you make any progress with User Insight about that? I believe it would do so much more than the written word in conveying the difficulty that people have in finding this sort of information, and it's something that once you're "in" the industry, you sort of forget about. 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

Final version - proof-read
by Emily Taylor Dec. 5, 2011

Dec. 5, 2011

Hi all I attach a mark up showing my final edits to the Draft Report, which we will be publishing on Monday. You can see my changes. They are mainly correction of typos, adding a couple of footnote references, and making sure that we are using terms consistently. I also split the report into three parts (Part I: Scope and definitions; Part II - WHOIS Policy and implementation and Part III - the extent to which WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective in meeting stakeholder needs). I found that this made it easier to see how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together. There are a couple of more substantive changes: 1. Recommendations - As agreed on the list, I have unhighlighted (ie confirmed) the best practices recommendations re proxies, and inserted the introductory text proposed by Susan and amended by me. 2. Recommendations - given the late controversy on whether the interface should be for all gTLDs or just thin ones, I have put in two alternatives for public comment, as proposed by Peter, and have added a sentence near the introductory text on proxies. 3. Recommendations - Lutz's add on consumer outreach I have added into the paragraph below where it was - I am unaware of any opposition to this addition, or even when it was made, so shout if you have objections. 4. Recommendations - A few days ago, given the discussion of the words "registrar-operated" in recommendation 10, I proposed their deletion. I heard no opposition, and have deleted them. 5.The order of the chapter on implementation (which I wrote) I found annoying, and not sufficiently clear because it has suffered from being moved back and forth from the main report to the more detailed letter in the appendix. I have therefore made a few changes there, which are marked up. These should be uncontentious - the aim is to explain what's going on rather than introduce substantive changes. Please give any final final edits to me and Alice/ circulated to the list by the end of the weekend. Alice -- you will see that I've managed to muck up some of the formatting (in particular I could not get the title for PART III to appear on the same page as the next chapter heading, so gave up). Please can you also update the table of contents. On Monday, if no more comments have been made, please accept all the marked up changes, and publish the draft report. I will also forward an outline of our proposed cover note/ request for comment. 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.

6 8

Draft Report
by Denise Michel Dec. 5, 2011

Dec. 5, 2011

Dear Emily and Team members: Congratulations on moving your draft report to the public comment phase. I've been following the evolution of your recommendations and while Staff has some questions, comments, suggested corrections, and additional information for the Team's consideration, we thought it best, given your publication target (and Staff's workload), to provide these during the public comment period. The information below is useful. You're probably way ahead of me on this, but just in case... I'd suggest you include in your posting note for the public comment forum information on the Team's Costa Rica plans and your expected schedule for producing the final report. Interested parties will want to know the steps and timing on finalizing the report. As always, please let me know if you need anything further from Staff. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> wrote: > Hi Peter > > Thanks for your comments. I think we all feel the same way! > > Thanks also for posing those questions, which I've been thinking about in > my head, but haven't communicated to anyone. > > 1. We're planning a long public comment on this one. Basically, it will > be open until the Costa Rica meeting closes. Denise told me that there is > a new form of public comment, where people can comment on the comments, and > I think we have time to do both of those before Costa Rica. Anyway, it > means that it's out there for comment until the next ICANN meeting. > > 2. Yes, I think we should meet in Costa Rica, and I expect that we should > try to schedule our meeting day for the Thursday (or some time *after* we > have done our outreach, public comment sessions). We're aiming to schedule > a call with the Board this month to introduce them to our draft report and > findings, and we may try to reach out to others (GNSO Council??) in the > same way during this period of public comment. > > 3. We will need some time to take in comments and review our draft. I > think six weeks after the Costa Rica meeting should do it, putting final > publication on or before 30 April 2012 - that's my proposal, anyway. > > Kind regards > > Emily > > > > > On 4 December 2011 23:23, Nettlefold, Peter <Peter.Nettlefold(a)dbcde.gov.au > > wrote: > >> Hi Emily and all,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I am very impressed with the huge amount of work that has been done in >> the past week - it has made my head spin (and my inbox explode) trying to >> keep up!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> This being our draft, there are obviously some areas we will be >> revisiting and continuing to discuss before we publish the final report, >> but I think this draft clearly lays out the issues we have been grappling >> with, as well as the solutions we have considered. There are some things I >> might like to change if we had more time, but I expect we all feel like >> that, and my overall feeling is one of relief at passing this over to the >> community for comment!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Looking forward, and I apologise if I have missed this, but do we have a >> work plan/timeline to reach the final report? For example:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> **· **How long with our draft be out for public comment? **** >> >> **· **Will we be meeting in Costa Rica? Will this be to complete >> the final report? **** >> >> **· **When do we anticipate the final report being published?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Sorry for all the questions, and I’m sorry if I’ve missed this, but >> before Christmas I have several planning and travel approval processes to >> go through for next year, and WHOIS is an important part of that picture. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Cheers,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Peter**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Susan Kawaguchi >> *Sent:* Monday, 5 December 2011 9:11 AM >> *To:* Emily Taylor; rt4-whois(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Final version - proof-read**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Looks great! I have no revisions. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> It will be interesting to see the response by the community. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Emily Taylor >> *Sent:* Saturday, December 03, 2011 6:28 AM >> *To:* rt4-whois(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Final version - proof-read**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Hi all >> >> I attach a mark up showing my final edits to the Draft Report, which we >> will be publishing on Monday. >> >> You can see my changes. They are mainly correction of typos, adding a >> couple of footnote references, and making sure that we are using terms >> consistently. I also split the report into three parts (Part I: Scope and >> definitions; Part II - WHOIS Policy and implementation and Part III - the >> extent to which WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective in >> meeting stakeholder needs). I found that this made it easier to see how >> the pieces of the jigsaw fit together. >> >> There are a couple of more substantive changes: >> >> 1. Recommendations - As agreed on the list, I have unhighlighted (ie >> confirmed) the best practices recommendations re proxies, and inserted the >> introductory text proposed by Susan and amended by me. >> 2. Recommendations - given the late controversy on whether the interface >> should be for all gTLDs or just thin ones, I have put in two alternatives >> for public comment, as proposed by Peter, and have added a sentence near >> the introductory text on proxies. >> 3. Recommendations - Lutz's add on consumer outreach I have added into >> the paragraph below where it was - I am unaware of any opposition to this >> addition, or even when it was made, so shout if you have objections. >> 4. Recommendations - A few days ago, given the discussion of the words >> "registrar-operated" in recommendation 10, I proposed their deletion. I >> heard no opposition, and have deleted them. >> 5.The order of the chapter on implementation (which I wrote) I found >> annoying, and not sufficiently clear because it has suffered from being >> moved back and forth from the main report to the more detailed letter in >> the appendix. I have therefore made a few changes there, which are marked >> up. These should be uncontentious - the aim is to explain what's going on >> rather than introduce substantive changes. >> >> Please give any final final edits to me and Alice/ circulated to the list >> by the end of the weekend. >> >> Alice -- you will see that I've managed to muck up some of the formatting >> (in particular I could not get the title for PART III to appear on the same >> page as the next chapter heading, so gave up). Please can you also update >> the table of contents. On Monday, if no more comments have been made, >> please accept all the marked up changes, and publish the draft report. >> >> I will also forward an outline of our proposed cover note/ request for >> comment. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Emily >> >> -- >> >> >> [image: Image removed by sender.]**** >> >> * >> * >> >> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK >> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 >> emily(a)emilytaylor.eu >> >> *www.etlaw.co.uk* >> >> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and >> Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> * >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> * >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended >> recipient(s) >> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy >> all >> copies of the original message. >> >> This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. >> MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, >> undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway >> products please visit www.axway.com. >> >> * >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> * >> > > > > -- > > > > > > * > * > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 > emily(a)emilytaylor.eu > > *www.etlaw.co.uk* > > Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and > Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > >

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Final version - proof-read
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Dec. 5, 2011

Dec. 5, 2011

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Dec. 2, 2011

Dec. 2, 2011

8 8

No agreement on Lutz's recommendations
by Kathy Kleiman Dec. 2, 2011

Dec. 2, 2011

Hi Emily, As of this morning, there was considerable support for a rewording: To improve access to the Whois data of .COM and .NET gTLDs, the only remaining Thin Registries, ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick WHOIS data for them. And _no consensus _I could see on the other wording, namely: 14. To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to allow "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information" by querying the appropriate servers, not copying the database. and a different variation floating around: To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to allow "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information". Such interface should provide thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names. Note: this is not one that arrived at consensus earlier, so this is minority report territory. Tx, Kathy --

9 9

Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Dec. 2, 2011

Dec. 2, 2011

2 1