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

Translation of Discussion Paper
by Alice Jansen July 8, 2011

July 8, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Just dropping a line to inform you that translations of your discussion paper into the 5 UN languages were recently posted on the ICANN website: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whoisrt-discussion-paper-09jun11-en.… Thanks, Kind regards Alice

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] RFP for Consumer Research
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com July 8, 2011

July 8, 2011

2 2

Recommendations
by Susan Kawaguchi July 7, 2011

July 7, 2011

Hello, The following are 4 recommendations and additional information surrounding my suggestions in the attached document. 1) Create Single WHOIS policy 2) Change to a Registry Thick WHOIS 3) Registrant pays for validation of WHOIS data 4) Create contractual agreements between ICANN and each Proxy/Privacy Registration service provider and impose standardized best practices Considering the call is at 3 am pdt I will not be on the call I do not think I can add anything substantial to the discussion in the middle of the night. Good luck and I look forward to listening to the recording of the call tomorrow. 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 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.

5 11

Assignments - Action required
by Emily Taylor July 6, 2011

July 6, 2011

Hi all At our wrap-up face to face meeting in Singapore, the messages I took away were: - You want me to be more prescriptive as your Chair, and assign people to draft up the sections of the report. - We want to get the RFP issued and signed off - We want to brain-storm recommendations, and "rise above our parochial interests" in doing so. *1. Assigning individuals to draft up the report.* OK - here's my assignments for drafting up the report: Kathy - Sections 3 and 4 (Scope and Methodology) Sharon - Section 5 (What do the terms contained in the AoC and our scope mean) Law enforcement, applicable laws, producers and maintainers Lynn - Section 5 (from Consumer trust) James - Section 6 (Identification and Inventory of Existing WHOIS policy) Emily - Section 7 (Identification and Inventory of ICANN's implementation) Peter - Section 8 (Gap analysis) Goal/Deadline. Please circulate first draft by the end of July. If you need to get others to help you with sections, please do so, but you are responsible for delivery of the draft in time. If you have other commitments which will prevent you from meeting the deadline, please let me know as soon as possible, and we will figure it out. We will revisit Exec Summary, Introduction, and Recommendations once we have made progress. Sharon/Lynn - Section 5 is quite a biggie, and we also agreed that it would contain use cases and stakeholder analysis. We also need to work out how we present the outcome of our law enforcement and consumer trust questionnaire. I think the best approach will be to annex the reports, and highlight the findings in the body of the report. Section 5 will contain evidence of what law enforcement and consumers told us their needs were. Then any impressions on policy or implementation will fit into sections 6 and 7, and gaps identified will be in section 8. *2. RFP* Lynn has done some sterling work on the draft, and I think is awaiting some input from the lawyers amongst us on the terms side (Kim - please can you help out on this). My impression from our last meeting was that we are comfortable for this to be issued, without further rounds of comments from us. So, Kim, can I ask you to coordinate with Lynn to get this finished, and issued, and Lynn you can provide us with an update on Wednesday's call. 3. Brainstorming recommendations. For our next call, I would like to start brainstorming our recommendations, and I want everyone to pick their top 3. I think Bill put it nicely in our last meeting: "Pretend to be the wisest, most benevolent dictator. You need to fix this problem, but you cannot alienate one or more groups of your subjects. What would you do to solve it?" So, on our next call, we will do a virtual tour de table, and deliver our 3 recommendations. Kind regards Emily PLEASE NOTE: from 30 June 2011 my contact details have changed (see below). [image: Emily Taylor Consultancy - Internet Governance] 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

US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction
by Omar Kaminski July 6, 2011

July 6, 2011

Dear RT, some news that could impact somehow our study and work. Best, Omar http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2083906/claims-com-net-websites-ju… US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction Sees an Internet without borders By Lawrence Latif Mon Jul 04 2011, 15:53 THE US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) wants to take down web sites that use the .com and .net top level domains (TLD) regardless of whether their servers are based in the US. Erik Barnett, assistant deputy director of ICE said told the Guardian that the agency will actively target web sites that are breaking US copyright laws even if their servers are not based in the US. According to Barnett, all web sites that use the .com and .net TLDs are fair game and that, since the Domain Name Service (DNS) indexes for those web sites are routed through the US-based registry Versign, ICE believes it has enough to "seek a US prosecution". According to the Guardian, ICE is not focusing its efforts just on web sites that stream dodgy content but those that link to them, something the newspaper claims has "considerable doubt as to whether this is even illegal in Britain". It points out that the only such case to have been heard by a judge in the UK was dismissed. Barnett said, "By definition, almost all copyright infringement and trademark violation is transnational. There's very little purely domestic intellectual property theft." However Barnett's claim that because Verisign is the registry for .com and .net TLDs that gives ICE jurisdiction over servers based in foreign countries seems tenuous at best. Nevertheless he said, "Without wishing to get into the particulars of any case, the general goal of law enforcement is to arrest and prosecute individuals who are committing crimes. That is our goal, our mission. The idea is to try to prosecute." Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group told the Guardian, "This seems absurd [...] if you don't have some idea that there's a single jurisdiction in which you can be prosecuted for copyright infringement that means you're potentially opening an individual to dozens of prosecutions." ICE is most probably banking on expectations that those it accuses of sharing copyrighted content won't be able to afford a legal team to question its claim that its jurisdiction extends beyond US borders.

1 0

Note Pod Content from call
by Alice Jansen July 6, 2011

July 6, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, For your convenience, please find below the content of the note pod. Kindly note that this is not the preliminary report of the conference call. Thanks, Very best Alice ------ AGENDA 1. Adopt agenda 2. Report of Singapore meeting 3. Brainstorming session - Recommendations (All - to bring 3 recommendations. Those unable to join, please circulate in advance of the call). 4. RFP update (Lynn) 5. Assignment of individuals to draft sections of report (any comments, or queries) 6. Circulating comments from stakeholder meetings (all) 7. Update on ALAC vacancy due to resignation of Olivier Iteanu. 8. AOB PARTICIPANTS: Michael, Peter, Sharon, Olof, Kathy, Emily APOLOGIES: Bill, Susan, Omar, Kim, Sarmad, James NOTES 1. Agenda adopted 2. Preliminary Report adopted 3. Recommendations (SL): should be standards to simplify WHOIS look-up/find WHOIS data, WHOIS check costs should be borne by the registrants and be realistic (price of domain name should go up)- apply offline principles to online business (PN): should be principles which apply to online world + more active/effective compliance by ICANN - privacy/proxy issues (ET): applying offline principles, getting more currency, new medium - principles that translate very well from online world - 1. develop a state of policy which balances needs of stakeholders 2. ensure that policy and implementation take account of privacy/proxy services appropriately 3. in place of annual registry, work with registrars to develop metrics for WHOIS accuracy implementation - improvement of implementation (KK): ICANN WHOIS policy should be clear unambigious and posted for review. icann should put together a list of applicable laws - no single person/place responsible for speaking/monitoring processes in place. helpful for community outside to know. a) The Whois Policy of ICANN should be clear, unambiguous, and posted for all to review b) That ICANN put together a list of the "applicable laws" so there is a common sense and knowledge of them c) Currently ICANN seems to have no single person or place responsible for speaking and monitoring the multiple Whois processes -- and one person would make the process of monitoring and supporting the various Whois processes much easier and clearer for the ICANN communities and for communities outside of ICANN. Conclusion - More analysis on paper and organize recommendations into 2 buckets: 1. Issues on which people are agreeing 2. contentious issues A. non-contentious (SK) 1 + 2 + 3 B. contentious (KVA) 1 A - B too restrictive - additional categories are: Privacy proxy access to information: (KVA) 3 - (OK) 1 + 2 + 3 Data accuracy and implementation: (KVA) 2 - High degree of converging (KK) - (ET) - (ON) - to create bundles of different issues - this will help identify overlaps. Creation of document that can revisit. 4. RfP (KK)'s suggestion: clarify 2 definitions of consumer trust the Team has been working on -- part of background briefing (LG) open for comment until Friday, 8 July - Lynn to finalize/issues the document. Thanks, Lynn! 5. Assignments (ET)'s proposal circulated via email - (SL)'s need for guidance on what has been done so far on applicable laws - producers/maintainers - comments/activities (ET) encourages to review stakeholders' comments 6. ALAC representative 7. AOB Holidays - (ET) back beginning of August Private wiki page on holiday dates to be created

1 0

July/August 2011 - Will you be offline?
by Alice Jansen July 6, 2011

July 6, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, In the A.O.B section of the call, Members asked that a page on the private wiki be created for holiday dates. Please go to https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Summer+2011+-+Vacati… and provide your details. Enjoy the Summer! Kind regards Alice

1 0

RFP for Consumer Research
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com July 6, 2011

July 6, 2011

5 4

recommendations v3 :-)
by Alice Jansen July 6, 2011

July 6, 2011

2 1

recommendations document
by Alice Jansen July 6, 2011

July 6, 2011

1 0