February 2012 - Rt4-whois - lists.icann.org

Preliminary report for your approval - 9 Nov
by Alice Jansen May 1, 2012

May 1, 2012

Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the preliminary report of your teleconference held on 9 November. Kindly note that this will be discussed during your upcoming conference call. In the meantime, please feel free to email editing suggestions/requirements. 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

1 4

Re: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call with ICANN Board today @ 19:00 UTC
by Kathy Kleiman Feb. 29, 2012

Feb. 29, 2012

Hi All, There are some very interesting discussion items in the chat room text below -- and it shares a sense of what's on the minds of the Board. I expect we'll see a continuation of the types of issues raised below in our meeting with the Board in Costa Rica. So if you missed the call, thanks for taking a quick read through... Best, Kathy: > > Dear all, > > Please find the chat transcript from the call below, and also the > final slide deck attached as presented (featuring a very minor > correction in relation to the version sent earlier). > > Very best regards > > Olof > > ------------------ > > CHAT TRANSCRIPT > > Olof Nordling: (2/29/2012 18:39) Welcome to the WHOIS RT - ICANN Board > Webinar! > > Kathy Kleiman: (19:56) Hi All! > > Ram Mohan: (19:58) hi > > Emily Taylor: (19:59) Hi > > Diane: (19:59) hello > > Omar Kaminski: (19:59) hi > > judith: (20:01) Hello > > cherine chalaby: (20:01) hi > > Akram Atallah: (20:01) hello everyone! > > Mike Silber: (20:01) Thanks Olaf - hi all > > Steve Crocker: (20:08) Minor comment: Whois is tied to domain names, > not web sites. > > Thomas Narten: (20:10) does the 20% figure include proxy > registrations? I.e., are those considered "inaccurate"? > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:12) There is a separate study in play, right now, > as Emily notes. > > Ram Mohan: (20:12) not sure i understand the policy gap bullet - are > you stating that the proxy service is not congruent with offering > privacy? Or whether there is doubt about accuracy? > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:13) Thomas, if you could reach the proxy service > (or privacy service) with accurate information in the Whois, that was > "reachable" > > Susan: (20:13) and there is no clear definition of Privacy versus > Proxy registrations > > Susan: (20:13) very confused at the moment > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:15) Privacy - registrant's name + privacy service > contact information; proxy service - all information, including > registrant is listed as the proxy service provider. > > Ram Mohan: (20:15) in the .INFO TLD, over 60% of abusive names are > proxied; a few registrars cooperate after the registry identifies a > potential problem, but in most cases the registry can't really draw > many patterns from proxy registrations > > Ram Mohan: (20:15) so i don't understand what is meant by need to > raise awareness and improve user-friendliness... > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:17) legitimate uses of proxy services shared with > us by both commercial and noncommercial user groups. > > Ram Mohan: (20:18) thanks Emily! > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:26) Ram, one of the larger issues we (Review > Team) would like to encourage is a "culture of compliance." > > Ram Mohan: (20:27) Kathy - got it. But there is "compliance" and > there is Compliance... > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:27) Good point :-)! > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:34) And also Data Protection Commissioners who > have tried to participate over the years, but find it hard to follow > over long periods of time. Outreach on new policy issues. > > Steve Crocker: (20:34) Reduce by 50% from what level? > > Steve Crocker: (20:36) 23% wholly inaccurate. 21% inaccurate to the > point of inability to reach the registrant. > > Steve Crocker: (20:36) Sorry: 23% wholly accurate... > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:37) "Contactibility" > > Steve Crocker: (20:37) Where does the 50% goal come from? Why not a > larger or smaller number? How feasible is this goal? > > Ram Mohan: (20:38) in practice, quite a few "non-contactable" > registrants are from large companies, where employees have left but > the records have not been updated. I worry about measures such as > removing the domain altogether if the registrant is unreachable. > Perhaps a WHOIS Data Redemption Period has to be created, where the > name goes dark but can be restored upon more accurate data? > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:39) who is speaking, please? > > Steve Crocker: (20:39) Is there a target level that would be > considered sufficient? E.g. 80% contactible? 90%? 95%? 99%? 99.9%? > > Susan: (20:40) I agree with you Ram but in the obvious cases which I > run into frequently where the only information is and "a" in each field > > Susan: (20:40) I think action should be taken swiftly > > judith: (20:40) Billing & collection records are from my experience > always accurate. Money talks. > > Susan: (20:41) I agree with you Judith but that data is not always > included in the WHOIS > > Steve Crocker: (20:41) Judith, you're right! > > Ram Mohan: (20:41) Susan - ugh! Better penalties, with a decent > remedy could work then. That's what I mean by the WHOIS Data > Redemption Period - the name goes down, if the name is not contactable > > Susan: (20:41) If the billing data that is verified was included in > the WHOIS record then we would have more accuracy > > judith: (20:42) Yes Susan. WHOis data is almost always filled up by > an individual in an IT Dept where there is frequent employee churn. > > Susan: (20:42) not in a well managed domain name portfolio! > > Ram Mohan: (20:42) Susan - that won't work in the case of proxy data... > > judith: (20:42) I am referring to the Registrant. > > Susan: (20:43) my view point (not necessarily ) as a team member but > as Facebook employee content should never be served on a proxy > registration > > Susan: (20:44) that is what Privacy registrations are for > > Ram Mohan: (20:44) is a rubbish record = a rubbish domain? > > Bill Graham: (20:44) Going forward, could there not be a requirement > that whois data be accurate for a new registrant (some TLDs do that > now). Won't help with cleanup, but if done before the new gTLDs come > along, it would be a step forward > > Ram Mohan: (20:44) if we got rid of a rubbish record, what happens > to the domain linked to the record? > > Susan: (20:45) Bill I would agree, the new gTlds should be required > to verify for accuracy > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:46) Quick note that there may be a difference > between knowing who the Registrant is, and reaching the Registrant to > let me know about a legal concern (e.g., a cease and desist letter) > > Thomas Narten: (20:46) my point is that the only domain names that > people care about looking up in whois is ones where someone believes > some sort of abuse is going on. Is that a fair statement? > > Susan: (20:46) Not completely > > Emily Taylor: (20:47) Thomas - not entirely. It's an important > aspect, but not the only one. > > Ram Mohan: (20:47) Bill - accuracy is itself not fully defined > > Mike Silber: (20:47) just to try get a benchmark - given the comment > about GoDaddy going beyond simple compliance - what are their figures > like? > > Susan: (20:47) in acquisitions or domain name management I use the > WHOIS records of our domain names on a daily basis > > Bladel: (20:48) @MIke: Do you mean internal GoDaddy stats? > > Bladel: (20:49) The NORC accuracy study was not, to my knowledge, > broken down by registrar (altho this would be very interesting!). > > Mike Silber: (20:51) if they are willing to share - even if rough or > under confidentiality > > judith: (20:51) Problem being- domain names have become so > inexpensive- aking to a disposable consumer item. Does Wal-Mart track > who bought a $35 T-shirt? > > Mike Silber: (20:52) would like to know where a registrar "who > cares" sits, so we know better what the worst case of those who do not > care are sitting with > > Bladel: (20:53) @Judith: Considering this has made Internet / DNS > participation open to millions of new global users, we do not see > inexpensive fees as a "problem." > > Susan: (20:53) Judith I have always felt that domain name > registrations fees do not cover the full expense of registering and > administering a domain name > > Susan: (20:54) If the registrars charged more and used the funds to > verify data it would shrink the problems we have > > Susan: (20:54) companies are picking up the expenses due to the lack > of accuracy > > Diane: (20:54) Do I have a set of the slides available to send to > the board members who arent attending? > > judith: (20:54) I agree with you, Susan. > > Ram Mohan: (20:54) @Bladel: GoDaddy offers a *lot* for a low cost > registration, and seem to be a success, so not sure more $$ will > result in better accuracy > > judith: (20:55) GoDaddy sells services. > > Olof Nordling: (20:56) Yes, sent with the reminder this morning (my > morning) but I'll send you one slightly improved in a jiffy > > Ram Mohan: (20:56) @Judith - i am not sure data shows that low > prices leads to lower accuracy, or vice versa > > Thomas Narten: (20:56) people aren't paying for domain names with > "cash". > > judith: (20:57) From personal experience- I never bother to update > my corporate whois data! > > Diane: (20:57) Thanks Olof - will distribute to the board after the call > > Kathy Kleiman: (20:58) On this point, we talked with ICANN Staff, > and they mentioned that an expansion of Internic might be possible. > > Lynn Goodendorf: (20:58) unfortunately, there are domain names paid > for with stolen credit card data; this was presented by Law Enforcement > > Steve Crocker: (21:03) Thanks Emily and everyone. I need to break > off to head to the airport. > > Seth Reiss 2: (21:04) Thanks Emily and Board > > Ram Mohan: (21:04) Thanks Emily & Whois team for a good overview, > and look forward to a good session in Costa Rica > > Kathy Kleiman: (21:04) Tx Steve! > > Kathy Kleiman: (21:05) Any questions? > > Michael Yakushev: (21:05) thanks to all > > judith: (21:05) Thank you! > > Olof Nordling: (21:05) Thanks all! > > Kathy Kleiman: (21:05) Tx All! > > *From:*Olof Nordling > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:37 PM > *To:* Olof Nordling; Diane Schroeder; Alina Syunkova; Denise Michel; > 'Emily Taylor'; 'Kathy Kleiman'; 'Nettlefold, Peter'; 'Mikhail > Yakushev'; 'Smith, Bill'; Alice Jansen; 'Lynn Goodendorf'; 'Lynn2 > Goodendorf'; 'LEMON, Sharon'; 'Sharon Lemon'; 'Omar Kaminski'; 'Sarmad > Hussain'; 'Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'James > Bladel'; 'Lutz Donnerhacke'; 'Seth M Reiss' > *Subject:* RE: REMINDER -- Call with ICANN Board today @ 19:00 UTC > > Dear Review Team Members, > > With around 90 minutes left until the call begins, I would just like > to remind you again to please *identify yourselves at the call before > you speak*. This will facilitate for all -- not the least for the > scribes (who may be used to the voices of the Board members, but less > so when it comes to Review Team members...) > > Thanks! > > Olof > > *From:*Olof Nordling > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:37 AM > *To:* Diane Schroeder; Alina Syunkova; Olof Nordling; Denise Michel; > 'Emily Taylor'; 'Kathy Kleiman'; 'Nettlefold, Peter'; 'Mikhail > Yakushev'; 'Smith, Bill'; 'Lynn Goodendorf'; 'Lynn2 Goodendorf'; > 'LEMON, Sharon'; 'Sharon Lemon'; 'Omar Kaminski'; 'Sarmad Hussain'; > 'Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'James Bladel'; > 'Lutz Donnerhacke'; 'Seth M Reiss' > *Subject:* REMINDER -- Call with ICANN Board today @ 19:00 UTC > > Dear Review Team Members, > > Your conference call with the ICANN Board of Directors is scheduled for: > > ***Wednesday, 29 February 2012*** > > *19:00 UTC* > > *Please be kindly reminded to identify yourself before you speak.* > > /Please check your local time at/: > > *http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT-ICANN+BOARD+OF+DIRECTORS&iso=20120229T19 > <http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT-ICANN+BOARD+O…>* > > PASSWORD: *27318 **followed by **# * > > *_Adobe room_**: **http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/* > > *_Dial-in numbers:_* > > Please find below a table which encapsulates dial-in numbers for your > countries of residence. > > Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list which is > available at: *http://www.adigo.com/icann/* > > *Australia* > > > > 1 800 009 820 > > 1 800 036 775 > > Sydney T +61 290372962 > > Melbourne T +61 399996500 > > Brisbane T +61 731777546 > > *Austria* > > > > L - 0 800 295 858 > > M - 0 800 295 138 > > T - +43 720 882 638 > > *Belgium* > > > > L - 0800 79210 > > M -- 0800 79218 > > T - +32 78 480 286 > > *Brazil* > > > > L - 0800 891 1597 > > M - 0800 891 1598 > > T - +55 613 717 2040 > > *Canada* > > > > 1 800 550 6865 > > T - +1 213 233 3193 > > *France* > > > > 0800 90 25 56 > > T - +33 170618347 > > *Germany* > > > > L - 0800 1016 120 > > G - M 0800 1016 124 > > *Russia* > > > > 8 10 8002 535 3011 > T - +7 499 650 7835 > > *United Kingdom* > > > > 0800 032 6646 > > T - +44 207 099 0867 > > *United States* > > > > 1 800 550 6865 > > T - +1 213 233 3193 > > /T -- local toll number ; M -- mobile preferred number ; L -- landline > preferred number/ > > Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for > this call. > > Please also find attached the slides that will be presented at the call. > > Very best regards > > Olof > --

2 1

Call with ICANN Board
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Feb. 29, 2012

Feb. 29, 2012

2 1

Question regarding Board conference call
by Denise Michel Feb. 25, 2012

Feb. 25, 2012

Dear Emily, I received a query from a few Board members and would appreciate your/the Team's assistance in answering. Board members have received a detailed briefing on the Team's recommendations from me, and many (perhaps all?) plan to attend the Team's public forum in Costa Rica. They'd like to know if the Team intends to present Board members with the same information as they'll present in Costa Rica, or if you have more information to share? They were wondering if there is an additional purpose to this call beyond a general briefing on the Team's draft report? I know the original intent (as I recall) was to brief the Board as soon as the draft report was issued to help focus their attention and answer questions. You certainly have their attention :). Thanks for your assistance. Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct

2 2

Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] FW: Costa Rica - departure tax
by Kathy Kleiman Feb. 24, 2012

Feb. 24, 2012

Hi All, Here's a note to the GNSO on a departure tax from Costa Rica, and how to avoid long lines at the airport. Best, Kathy *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From:* owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Glen de Saint Géry *Sent:* Πέμπτη, 23 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 10:48 μμ *To:* liaison6c *Subject:* [liaison6c] Costa Rica - departure tax Dear All, Heads up about airport tax on departure: You will need to pay a departure tax in Costa Rica before going back to the airport $32 dollars (US dollars. Do it at the RAMADA tour office and/or your hotel should offer you that service from their concierge. Do it early when you first check in or you can do at the Ramada … don’t forget … they take credit card or cash at the hotel.Do not wait to do this at the airport as it’s a mess, long lines, and I believe they only take cash (Costa Rica currency only) Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN Staff
by Denise Michel Feb. 23, 2012

Feb. 23, 2012

Dear Team members, Thank you, again, for participating in this conference call with ICANN Staff. Below, and attached, is a summary of the Team's recommendations to help facilitate our discussion. 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 *WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendations* *Single WHOIS Policy* 1) ICANN's WHOIS policy is poorly defined and decentralized; Team recommends Board oversee creation and publication of a single WHOIS policy document; include gTLD WHOIS policy in Registry & Registrar contracts, GNSO consensus policies & procedures. *Policy Review – WHOIS Data Reminder Policy (WDRP)* 2) Board should ensure that Compliance develops metrics to track impact of annual data reminder notices to registrants, and that these metrics be used to develop and publish performance targets to improve data accuracy over time (if not feasible, develop & implement an alternative policy). *Strategic Priority* 3) ICANN should make WHOIS a strategic priority, allocate sufficient resources to ensure Compliance is fully resourced to take a proactive regulatory role, encourage a culture of compliance; Board should ensure a senior member of the executive team is responsible for overseeing WHOIS compliance. *Outreach* 4) ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to interested communities outside of ICANN. *Data Accuracy* 5) ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of unreachable WHOIS registrations (as defined by the 2010 NORC Data Accuracy Study) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months. 6) ICANN shall publish annually an accuracy report on measured reduction in “unreachable WHOIS registrations.” 7) ICANN should publish status reports (at least annually) (with figures) on its progress towards achieving goals set out by the Team, the first to be issued before next review. 8) ICANN should ensure that there is a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain of contractual agreements with Registries, Registrars, and Registrants to require the provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data; as part of this, ICANN should ensure that clear, enforceable and graduated sanctions apply to Registries, Registrars, Registrants that don’t comply with WHOIS policies, including de-registration and/or de-accreditation for serious or serial non-compliance. 9) ICANN should ensure that requirements for accurate WHOIS data are widely and pro-actively communicated to current and prospective registrants, and should ensure that its Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document is pro-actively, prominently circulated to all new and renewing registrants. *Data Access – Privacy Services* 10) ICANN should develop and manage a system of clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for all privacy services consistent with national laws, balancing between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry around LE. These should include: WHOIS entry must clearly label that this is a private registration; privacy services must provide full contact details as required that are available and responsive (see above); standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes; rules for the appropriate level of publicly available information on the Registrant; maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the privacy service provider; privacy service provider shall conduct periodic due diligence checks. 11) ICANN should develop a graduated and enforceable series of penalties for privacy service providers who violate the requirements, with a clear path to de-accreditation for repeat, serial *Data Access - Proxy Services* 12) ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by reaching out to proxy providers to create a discussion that sets out current processes followed by these providers. 13) Registrars should be required to disclose to ICANN their relationship with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider. 14) ICANN should develop a set of voluntary best practice guidelines for appropriate proxy services consistent with national laws, striking a balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry around LE. Voluntary guidelines may include: proxy services provide full contact details as required; publication by the proxy service of its process for revealing and relaying information; standardization of reveal/relay processes & timeframes, consistent with national laws; maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the proxy service provider; due diligence checks on licensee contact information. 15) ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the retail service providers that adopt the best practices. 16) The published WHOIS Policy should include an affirmative statement that clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the Registrant is acting on behalf of another; the WHOIS data is that of the agent, and the agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the domain name and its manner of use. *Data Access – Common Interface* 17) To improve access to the WHOIS data of .COM & .NET gTLDs (the Thin Registries), ICANN should set-up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick WHOIS data for them. (An “Alternative for public comment”: 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” to provide thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names. *Internationalized Domain Names* 18) The ICANN Community should task a working group (WG) within 6 months of publication to finalize (i) encoding, (ii) modifications to data model, and (iii) internationalized services, to give global access to gather, store and make available internationalized registration data. Such WG should report no later than one year from formation, using existing IDN encoding. The WG should aim for consistency of approach across gTLDs and – on a voluntary basis – the ccTLD space. 19) The final data model and services should be incorporated and reflected in Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of adoption of the WG’s recommendations by the ICANN Board. If these recommendations are not finalized in time for the next revision of such agreements, explicit placeholders for this purpose should be put in place in the agreements for the new gTLD program at this time, and in the existing agreements when they come up for renewal (as is case for adoption of consensus policies). 20) Requirements for registration data accuracy and availability in local languages should be finalized (following initial work by IRD-WG and similar efforts, especially if translation or transliteration of data is stipulated) along with the efforts on internationalization of registration data. Metrics should be defined to measure accuracy and availability of data in local languages and (if needed) corresponding data in ASCII, and compliance methods and targets should be explicitly defined accordingly.

6 5

Costa Rica schedule
by Alice Jansen Feb. 22, 2012

Feb. 22, 2012

Dear Review Team Members, Please find enclosed the most recent version of your Costa Rican schedule also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/San+Jose+Meeting Rest assured that outlook invitations will be circulated as soon as locations are confirmed. Bridge details will be sent to those participating remotely. Emily and Kathy are currently in the process of finalizing draft agendas. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or concerns. Thanks, Kind regards Alice Sunday 13:00-17:30 -- WHOIS Review Team Meeting Description: This is the WHOIS Policy Review Team's working session. Public attendance is welcome but comments should be submitted during the Interaction with the Community Session scheduled for Monday, 12 March, 14:00-15:30 or through its public comment box at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05dec11-… 17:30-18:30 -- WHOIS Review Team – GNSO Council meeting 19:30-22:00 -- WHOIS Policy Review Team dinner Location TBD Monday 07:30-09:30 -- WHOIS Review Team Breakfast (in preparation for afternoon public session) - CLOSED 14:00-15:30 -- WHOIS Interaction with the Community Description: Presentation of draft final report recommendations for the community's consideration and feedback. For more information please refer to: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05dec11-en.htm 16:00-17:30 -- WHOIS Internal Debriefing - CLOSED Tuesday 11:00-12:00 -- WHOIS Review Team - GAC meeting Wednesday 08:00-17:00 -- WHOIS Policy Review Team Meeting 09:15-10:15 -- WHOIS Review Team - Board of Directors meeting NOTE: Emily needs to leave at 3:00 PM. Aim to stop the session then but schedule makes allowance for more time, which Kathy will chair, if need be. Description: This is the WHOIS Policy Review Team's working session. Public attendance is welcome but comments should be submitted during the Interaction with the Community Session scheduled for Monday, 12 March, 14:00-15:30 or through its public comment box at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05dec11-… -- 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

1 0

Roadmap related to WHOIS published by ICANN for comments
by Sarmad Hussain Feb. 20, 2012

Feb. 20, 2012

Please visit http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb12-en.htm. Regards, Sarmad ---- سرمد حسین Sarmad Hussain Professor and Head Center for Language Engineering (www.cle.org.pk) Al-Khawarizmi Institute of Computer Science (www.kics.edu.pk) University of Engineering and Technology (www.uet.edu.pk) Lahore, PAKISTAN

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Roadmap to a New Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (WHOIS)
by Kathy Kleiman Feb. 20, 2012

Feb. 20, 2012

Hi All, I am still reading through this as I pass it on to you. Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Roadmap to a New Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (WHOIS) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:26:04 -0500 From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> To: kathy(a)kathykleiman.com ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb12-en.htm ________________________________ Public Comment: Roadmap to a New Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (WHOIS) 18 February 2012 ICANN is pleased to announce the posting of the draft roadmap http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en… [PDF, 214 KB] to implement ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee's Report on Domain Name WHOIS Terminology and Structure (SAC 051). To make or view comments click here http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm. The SSAC report specifically targets, among other things, the "internationalization" of the WHOIS protocol, reflecting concern about the inability of the current WHOIS protocol to consistently handle non-ASCII data. Additionally, SAC 051 recommends terminology to be used to clarify discussions where traditionally the terms Whois or WHOIS have been used. This roadmap explores the coordination of the technical and policy discussions necessary to implement the recommendations outlined in SAC 051: SSAC Report on Domain Name WHOIS Terminology and Structure. As requested by the Board resolution, ICANN posts this draft Roadmap for community consultation, requesting community input on the scope, timing, utility, challenges, and ways to overcome those challenges that should also be considered. Staff will be conducting a public workshop on the draft roadmap http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en… [PDF, 214 KB] at ICANN's meeting in Costa Rica as an additional means of consulting with experts and the community. In order to allow extensive time for community dialogue and comment, it is envisioned to have two public comment periods allowing the draft Roadmap to evolve with the input received. Following that, the report will be finalized for Board and community action by the Prague ICANN meeting in June 2012. This message was sent to kathy(a)kathykleiman.com from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Manage Your Subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=22253995&l=6333&s=JC3G&m=87…

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Huffington Post article
by James M. Bladel Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

4 3