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

Flight delayed for Lutz Donnerhacke
by Uwe Donnerhacke Sept. 19, 2011

Sept. 19, 2011

Hi all, my brother (Lutz Donnerhacke) just phoned me from Paris, that his flight is delayed by 20 hours. Defect at jet engine shortly before takeoff. He will arrive tomorrow (20.9.2011) around noon at the airport. Greetings Uwe

1 0

Implementation Chapter (Draft)
by James M. Bladel Sept. 19, 2011

Sept. 19, 2011

1 0

Data protection letters to ICANN
by Kathy Kleiman Sept. 17, 2011

Sept. 17, 2011

Hi All, I know some people are en route, and others leave soon. Safe travels! For a little more light reading, I want to draw your attention to four documents shared by Bill Smith after the last meeting. These are four submissions of the Article 29 Working Party, one is an official opinion, and the other are three letters from then-Article 29 WP Chair Peter Schaar, Germany's powerful data protection commissioner, to ICANN's then-chair Vint Cerf. Bill is truly a researcher extraordinaire to find these documents! (Quick Note: the Article 29 Working Party is created by the EU Privacy Directive for all EU national data protection commissioners.) Below are a few snippets of the documents' very interesting discussions.... and full docs attached for the rest! Enjoy, Kathy _Four documents, 2003-2007_ 1) "Opinion 2/2003 on the application of the data protection principles to the Whois directories" - "The Working Party encourages ICANN and the Whois community to look at privacy enhancing ways to run the Whois directories in a way that serves its original purpose whilst protecting the rights of individuals. It should in any case be possible for individuals to register domain names without their personal details appearing on a publicly available register." 2) Schaar to Cerf, 6/22/06 - "The Article 29 WP is witnessing the growing importance of the WHOIS discussions as more and more individuals are registering their own domain names and in this connection there have been complaints about improper use of the WHOIS data in several countries." 3) Schaar to Cerf, 3/12/07 - Referencing the Operational Point of Contact (OPOC) proposal - "The Article 29 WP welcomes that the GNSO Whois Task Force has adopted a definition for the purpose of WHOIS as a basis for its work. As pointed out in previous submissions, such a purpose definition is a central element in determining whether a specific processing or use of personal data is in accordance with EU data protection legislation. The definition given in the report reads: "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." "The Article 29 WP acknowledges the legitimacy of the purpose of the making available of some personal data through the WHOIS services, when this publication is necessary for the technical functioning of the Internet network as set out in the purpose definition. This publicity is necessary in order to put the person running a Website in a position to face the legal and technical responsibilities which are inherent to the running of such a site. However, in its current form the database does not take account of the data protection and privacy rights of those identifiable persons who are named as the contacts for domain names and organizations." --

1 0

Voluntary meeting on Monday afternoon
by Alice Jansen Sept. 17, 2011

Sept. 17, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, This is to let you know that a session will be held on Monday afternoon. Note that this is a voluntary meeting, mostly of the Compliance Team, but open to all. If you are in MdR on Monday afternoon and wish to join, please go to the Palos Verde Room. Thanks, Kind regards Alice

1 0

Agenda - Marina del Rey Meeting
by Alice Jansen Sept. 17, 2011

Sept. 17, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the finalized version of the MdR agenda. Rest assured that we will prepare print-outs of this document for your convenience. Wishing you all a safe journey. Thanks, Kind regards Alice

1 0

Arrival in Los Angeles
by Emily Taylor Sept. 16, 2011

Sept. 16, 2011

Hi all To pick up a thread from our recent phone calls, I will be arriving in LA (to my surprise) on Sunday afternoon, so I'll be there all day Monday thinking about nothing but WHOIS. Happy to meet up and do some drafting or arguing with whoever's around. Best, 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.

3 2

Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from WHOIS-Review
by Alice Jansen Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, For your convenience, please find enclosed the note pod content of your call held on 14 September. Kindly note that these are draft notes and that Staff will create a preliminary report. Please be kindly reminded that conference call material posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+20+-+14+September+2011 Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Reply-To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 01:08:51 -0700 To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Subject: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from WHOIS-Review AGENDA: Roll call & apologies Adopt agenda Welcome Seth Adopt preliminary report (1 September) Consumer study: progress & updates Chapters: Progress & updates. Review and adopt the MdR agenda Material: do we have all the material we need in anticipation of the MdR meeting? A.O.B PARTICIPANTS: Emily, Michael, Sharon, Bill, James, Kathy, Seth, Susan, Omar APOLOGIES : Peter, Lutz, Lynn,Olof NOTES: 1.Special welcome to Seth. Replacing Olivier Iteanu - Seth: difficulty to ingrate all the material. Attention in MdR will be focused on chapters. 2.Agenda adopted 3.Subject to (LG)'s confirmation, preliminary report is adopted. 4.(LG) independent research on consumer attitude, trust in relation to WHOIS. Expectations for MdR? KK Samard Susan Kim helped (LG) pinpointing countries that would be part of the survey. Survey company went ahead and began interviewing 20 individuals in the world. The videotaped interviews will be available to RT - These are preliminary interviews. What people are responding to. Survey company will be reporting to us. Slot on Wednesday morning. Outline of what happened during 1to1 interviews and draft material of what suggesting for questions. Presentation for that and discussion period to talk about questions - get them up and running for the next course of actions. 5.Chapters - (JB) update - comparing with KK - chance to review that and distribute Team before MdR. Thanks (SK) for sharing examples of WHOIS look-ups. (SK) added to (LG)'s consumer chapter. This is the framework we were looking for thanks (SK). (SK) Ebay - report on fraud. (SK) welcomes comments and wordsmithing. (KK) still representing Registries - minority groups - widen. (BS) questionning need for domain name owners if desire is to publish information and remain anonymous. - struggling with argument that any domain name owner can remain anonymous. All require identification. (ET) acknowledge both. right to privacy not the same as the right of anonymity. All of these comments take us back to something we agreed to do. the report should deal with the purpose of the WHOIS. Let's not lose track of that.. Would Susan's piece of work go into the body or annex? PN - Members haven't had time to review document externsively but (ET) noted: we don't have opposing arguments - domain-name should be more expensive (GAC meeting) - need to hear more from Registries and Registrars. (KK) - (JB) please help (PN) with pointers on that. Definitiong (SL) + (ET) - (BS) surprised at proposal + reference to Lawrence Strickling's comment: "why spend it so much time on definitions". Discussion have bene really helpful. (ET) proposal to rethink about those definitions in MdR - (SL) we need to agreed wether need those definitions or to stop now.. (ET) + (KK) the work is not wasted, the discussion is helpful (law enforcement questionnaire, led to compliance review, gap analysis). (KK) look forward to create definitions that community can use. (JB) make sure don't go too far down the road, set the boundaries. For MdR, (JB)'s draftl On journey to MdR, familiarize yourself with chapters, be ready to give editorial comment on each section. important that all comfortable with draft chapters as they are. reviewing policy not making it. 7. If get gap analysis right, recommendations should flow. (JB) preview of implementation before gap analysis. (JB) approach that can use to identify different categories of gap. Last working face-to-face before publish recommendations. Introduce policy and lead to details. 15-20 minutes. First 1./2 of the day to do work on policy and implementation. Dedicate morning to gap analysis and afternoon to recommendation. (KK) do we need a discussion of privacy laws. No outreach so far on privacy laws.. Article 29 group brief response? No - (BS) need to issue report.. (SK) understand (KK)'s concern but how should this be addressed? --> Liz Gasster 8. Draft recommendations by Dakar meeting. Hope to get this done by end of November

1 0

Gap analysis - accuracy [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by Nettlefold, Peter Sept. 15, 2011

Sept. 15, 2011

Hello all, Attached is a draft gap analysis relating to WHOIS data accuracy. As with the accessibility/privacy section, I have not had time to cover all the issues, complete all the analyses, balance all the arguments, and so on in this first draft. However, I hope that it has enough structure and shape to encourage comment, debate, and input as we prepare for Marina del Rey. One issue I've struggled with is the structure. As you've seen, I've basically broken the gap analysis in two (privacy/access and accuracy) because: * these two areas seemed to attract the most comment from our stakeholders; * they are clearly drawn out as issues in the AoC provisions on WHOIS; and * many of the other 'gaps' we initially identified seem to be sub-components of these two broader issues or to be closely linked to them. Now that there is a draft in this form, I'm hoping that others will comment on whether this structure will allow us to sensibly cover all the gaps or if there is a better way to pull the pieces together. Cheers, Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 2

Re: [Rt4-whois] Filings of Article 29 Working Party and Data Protection Commissioners
by Denise Michel Sept. 14, 2011

Sept. 14, 2011

Hello, Kathy. Staff will begin researching this as soon as possible, but prior commitments may prevent responding fully by the Team's meeting next week. There are 12 years worth of correspondence but I will ask Staff to work back from 2011 and post relevant correspondence on the wiki. 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 Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>wrote: > Dear Liz and Denise, > On behalf of the Whois Review Team, I would like to request the past > filings, submissions, letters and comments of data protection commissioners > speaking/writing to ICANN on Whois issues. > > We are looking for any material submitted over the duration of this > discussion with ICANN. This could be material of individual data protection > commissioners who may have written, as well as DP associations, e.g., The > Article 29 Working Party (and/or its chair) writing to ICANN. (As you know > the Article 29 Working Party is a group established under the EU Privacy > Directive and comprised of all national data protection commissioners of the > EU). > > There may be other associations of data protection commissioners that have > written to us as well, e.g., the International *Data Protection* and > Privacy *Commissioners* Conference. > > I do not think there are many filings, but I do recall they span a long > period of time, and probably date back to the original Whois Task Forces. > (4-5 pieces, maybe) > > Timeframe: As soon as possible, and by our Marina del Ray meeting next > week, if possible. > > Thank you, > > Kathy Kleiman > Vice-Chair, Whois Review Team > > -- > > > >

1 0

Suggested questions for Article 29 speaker
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Sept. 14, 2011

Sept. 14, 2011

4 5