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

Re: [Rt4-whois] Requesting team feedback on questionnaire for consumer trust survey
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Sept. 25, 2011

Sept. 25, 2011

3 2

DAKAR schedule
by Alice Jansen Sept. 23, 2011

Sept. 23, 2011

Dear Review team Members, Enclosed you will find your revised Dakar schedule. Saturday, 22 October 13:00-17:00 Face-to-Face meeting Sunday, 23 October 9:00-17:00 - Face-to-Face meeting Monday, 24 October 13:00-17:00 - Face-to-Face meeting Please also note that you may find it on your public wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Dakar+Meeting Thanks, Kindest regards Alice

2 1

Recordings of MdR meeting
by Alice Jansen Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Many thanks for a very fruitful meeting. This is to inform you that the mp3 recordings of the meeting may be found on the public wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Marina+del+Rey+Meeting Note that the mp3 of the closed session (not for distribution) may be found on the private wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/User+Insight+Report+… Have a safe journey home, Kindest regards Alice

1 0

Consumer trust - Ofcom survey
by Emily Taylor Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Hi all Thanks for a very productive meeting in LA this week. I enjoyed seeing you all again. I have been doing some more thinking about the issue of consumer trust, and wondered whether we might use some secondary sources in addition to our commissioned research. I will looking at this report on Internet usage in the UK by Ofcom (the UK communications regulator) http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/753567/CMR_2010_FINA…. The relevant section is Section 4, Internet and Web based content - page 233ff. The research discusses user attitudes to web content, their trust in search engine results, and their favourite sites and online activities (curiously, ICANN doesn't appear in the Top 10, and "whois searching" isn't listed as a favourite activity!). I'm sure that the UK is not the only country to do such research, and wondered whether we might find a couple of others to do some comparators on general consumer trust (which looks pretty good from this report, and good to see also that there's a fairly sophisticated level of ICT literacy/critical capacity), as a backgrounder before the deep dive into consumer attitudes towards WHOIS. 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

[OT] Panoramic pic of yesterday dinner
by Omar Kaminski Sept. 22, 2011

Sept. 22, 2011

Enjoy :)

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] [OT] Panoramic pic of yesterday dinner
by James M. Bladel Sept. 21, 2011

Sept. 21, 2011

1 0

Question on GNSO privacy/proxy study email
by Denise Michel Sept. 21, 2011

Sept. 21, 2011

Liz confirmed that the email regarding the GNSO privacy/proxy survey was sent to all constituency email lists (including all ICANN registrars and registries). There is no list of privacy/proxy providers. 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

1 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Question on GNSO privacy/proxy study email
by James M. Bladel Sept. 21, 2011

Sept. 21, 2011

2 1

Reviewing proxy/privacy ideas
by kathy＠kathykleiman.com Sept. 21, 2011

Sept. 21, 2011

Hi All, After good food and great company last night, I awoke with some new ideas regarding proxy/privacy service providers. What we know: - Not too much. Proxy/privacy providers (p/p) are not something we have studied closely. We know that many people, including very experienced Net users, do not have a clear distinction. They are generally used in the same voice at the same time. - We have no clear data about p/p. The upcoming GNSO studies will provide a) a study on reveal and relay requests to p/p providers, and b) a study of what percentage of “bad guys” are under p/p registration. We have only a study that says that 15-20% of domain names are under p/p, and an array of comments. We have not actual facts about p/p providers themselves. - Under US law, there is a strong protection of privacy and even anonymity in Free Speech, but “no tradition of anonymous commerce in the US.” Let me quote the World Trademark Review, Aug/Sept 2011, article: “Why Trademark Owners Must lead the fight for accountability in e-commerce.” ** “Clearly the First Amendment includes the right to speak anonymously. Moveover, the First Amendment places anonymous speech on the Internet on the same footing as other speech. As with other forms of expression, the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves without fear of economic or official retaliation or concern about social ostracism. The importance of the Internet to the expression of protected speech cannot be overstated…” Like the International Trademark Association, in some recent legislative work in the US, let’s focus on the conduct we are most concerned about: - Domain names being used in conjunction with “goods or services advertised or sold at that [a] website.” (International Trademark Association language as part of promoting a new US Statute for services of process to domain registrants whose data cannot be found – article above) For our WRT decisions, let’s please not create confusion. The lines between p/p are difficult and unclear. Let’s focus on conduct we know is out there and bounds that can be quickly established and are likely to help. ** Let me offer some reflections of yesterday. We all seem to agree that: ** - WE CAN BIND P/P CLOSER TO REGISTRARS, thus a Draft Recommendation: Registrars may not knowingly use for their own registrations, or register the domain names of p/p service providers who do not have contracts with them; do not have clear agreements to gather accurate Whois data from registrants; do not have clear contractual obligations to Reveal the underlying registrant data when requested under law or pursuant to ICANN rules. - ICANN will rapidly establish a proceeding, with Law Enforcement and Consumer Communities, as well as privacy and free speech Official and Experts, to develop a set of Reveal and Relay rules for p/p providers, in conjunction with the ICANN Community. - Registrant Declaration: is the domain name being used for goods or services sold or advertised using the domain name (note: this includes not only websites, but emails and other forms of domain name use). (Note: the GNSO might want to wait to set up rules until soon after their $200,000+ studies are completed within the year) Overall, separating out p/p providers without much more work and very, very, very extensive education -- it will be very confusing to ICANN and the Internet public. Best, Kathy

1 0

Reminder - Start time today --> 8:00 AM
by Alice Jansen Sept. 21, 2011

Sept. 21, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Please be kindly reminded that our start time for today is 8 o'clock. Thanks, Kind regards Alice

1 0