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

WEDNESDAY - Where do I need to be today?
by Alice Jansen March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

Wednesday 08:00-17:00 -- WHOIS Policy Review Team Meeting - Girasol 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, 16:30-18:00 or through its public comment box at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05dec11-… --- 09:15-10:15 -- WHOIS Review Team - Board of Directors meeting - Tiffany's Description: Meeting Between the Board & the WHOIS Policy Review Team to provide input into the draft report Agenda: Discussion of specific recommendations and implementation (following up on Board webinar of 29 February 2012) --- 11:00-12:30 -- Consumer Trust - Heliconia - http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29645 Description: This is a public meeting of the GNSO Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition Drafting Team (CCTC-DT) Agenda: A discussion of the recent posting in the Public Forum of the CCTC-DT's draft Advise Letter and related measures and metrics. -- 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

Fwd: Rule of law Safeguards
by Kathy Kleiman March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

Dear All, We have received the following comment from a member of the GNSO from the IP/Business community that I wanted to bring to your attention. Tx you! Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Rule of law Safeguards Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:06:46 -0600 From: Zahid Jamil <zahid(a)jamilandjamil.com> To: whois-rt-draft-final-report(a)icann.org <whois-rt-draft-final-report(a)icann.org> CC: olof.nordling(a)icann.org <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Dear WHOIS RT, A thought regarding the mention of "applicable law". There are some jurisdictions that may not incorporate certain internationally accepted safeguards with respect to law enforcement and regulatory powers. Instead of possibly leaving this open to arbitrary discretion and powers where such protections and safeguards may not fully exist, it may be useful to mention international standards with respect to safeguards in the exercise of procedural and other powers wielded by regulatory or law enforcement authorities such as that which appear in the only existing internationally binding instrument on cybercrime i.e. The Budapest Convention on cybercrime inter alia: Article 15 Conditions & Safeguards 1 Each Party shall ensure that the establishment, implementation and application of the powers and procedures provided for in this Section are subject to conditions and safeguards provided for under its domestic law, which shall provide for the adequate protection of human rights and liberties, including rights arising pursuant to obligations it has undertaken under the 1950 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other applicable international human rights instruments, and which shall incorporate the principle of proportionality. 2 Such conditions and safeguards shall, as appropriate in view of the nature of the procedure or power concerned, /inter alia,/ include judicial or other independent supervision, grounds justifying application, and limitation of the scope and the duration of such power or procedure. 3 To the extent that it is consistent with the public interest, in particular the sound administration of justice, each Party shall consider the impact of the powers and procedures in this section upon the rights, responsibilities and legitimate interests of third parties. Thank you for your the opportunity to comment and your kind consideration. Best regards, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my iPad

1 0

TUESDAY - Where do I need to be today?
by Alice Jansen March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

11:00-12:00 -- WHOIS Review Team - GAC meeting - Orquideas Description: Meeting between GAC and WHOIS Review Team to discuss the recommendations (following up on overviews already given) Agenda: Discussion of specific recommendations and implementation 1. Brief outline of the WHOIS Review Team'sfindings & recommendations 2. Discussion following from the WHOIS RT- GAC webinar held on 14 February 2012 and (ET) and (JB)'s discussions in Brussels on 7 February 2012 3. Q&A & additional discussion 4. Public comment period & final report ---------- -- 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

Interesting example of Privacy and Business
by James M. Bladel March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

3 2

Some pics, thanks to Alice :)
by Omar Kaminski March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

5 4

Chat content (more user-friendly version) + link to material
by Alice Jansen March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

Dear Review Team Members, I have created a Word version of the chat content that - I believe - is more user–friendly. You will find it attached. Note that your sessions' recordings, transcripts, chat contents and slides are available on your San Jose page at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/San+Jose+Meeting Rest assured that I will email you the scribe feed of your session today as soon as it gets posted. Thanks, Kind 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 0

FW: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from ICANN Meeting 43 - La Paz A
by Alice Jansen March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

Dear Review Team Members, Please find below content of the Adobe room chat box. Lutz was in the room interacting with remote participants. Lutz has also me asked me to email you a message: JUst an "internal" comment. German LAE asks how "proxy/privacy" can be use to protect identiies in witness protections programms. I urged them to send in a comment .... Thanks, Kind regards Alice Quote: On 3/12/12 6:04 PM, "Alice Jansen" <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> wrote: > Alice Jansen:Welcome to the WHOIS Policy Review Team Session. The >session will begin shortly. Your comments and questions will be read in >the room if asked. > Rob Golding (othello):? 6. measure reduction in "unreachable domain >names" - why does a *domain* have to reachable - or do you means >something else ? > Olof Nordling:@Rob - will read out your question in the Q&A, if you so >wish. > Rob Golding (othello):@olof - please - just to clarify the slide - i >*think* she meant where the registrant isnt (obviously) contactable, but >thats not how it was worded > Olof Nordling:@Rob - I am confident you are correct in that assumption >- rather an edit of the slide to be suggested, thus. > gpmgroup:Wby doesn't ICANN offer an incentive to have open & accurate >WHOIS data? > gpmgroup:Why > Olof Nordling:@gpmgroup - happy to read that one out in the Q&A, OK? > gpmgroup:thanks perhaps I should word it a little less ambigiously > Olof Nordling:listening;-) > Olof Nordling:listening;-) > Omar Kaminski:Feedback from Twitter: "@miltonmueller: Whois Review team >concludes that most consumers have never heard of Whois. So much for the >argument that it promotes consumer trust" > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup there are lots of reasons for >why people don't want all there date public > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:data > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:Still the whois service for .com and .net >and others like them are a shame and not trustworthy > Rob Golding (othello):? are there recommendations on Criminalising >misuses of WHOIS data - it took less than 3 days from a new registration >before spam started arriving at the unique email address I used on the >domain registration - having such information freely available and public >is not just a privacy concern but a real issue to normal users who dont >need a supplier of dodgy pharmaceuticals > gpmgroup:I agree Benny but if there was more incentives then it would >be an easy (dristibuted) way of cleaning up a large data set > Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - each registrar implenets their own whois >system for com/net as it's thin whois - there are many pros and cons to >that - pros being keepingyoru client data away from versign, cons being >no single layout/implementation of the data > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@rob one of may reasons > gpmgroup:@ Olof Why doesn¹t ICANN offer incentives to have open & >accurate WHOIS? > gpmgroup:lost sound > Amy Mushahwar:Yes, I've lost audio, too. > Rob Golding (othello):its gone silent :( > Olof Nordling:we have notified the tech services > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@Rob, clearly god reasons you state but >whats the alternative ? > Alice Jansen:Apologies - our Staff is looking into the issue. Please >refer to the live scribing in the meantime. Thanks for your patience. > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:I mean for a lot of CC tlds its working >fine > Lutz Donnerhacke:@Benny: No Whois at all? > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:anyway there are a lot of them not working >too > gpmgroup:http://stream.icann.org/sjo43-lapaza-64-en.m3u > gpmgroup:external sound > Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - personally I think WHOIS is largely >pointless and has been for 10 years - in t'old days, when t'interweb was >run by people who met down the pub on a friday, it was suseful to knwo >who should be contacted about nameserver changes (the tech contact) - now >the only person any 3rd party needs realy to contact is the registrar > Rob Golding (othello):is Law-Enforcement have a valid reason to request >the "real" data behind a registration, subject to approraite paperwork >they can ask > Lutz Donnerhacke:Rob: You are seeking for contractual realtionships in >Whois? Like a thin whois delegation structure? > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So if for any reason as a hosting company >wants to check an owner for a competing domain or infrigements on >trademark it shall be hidden ? > Lutz Donnerhacke:Please send in your questions to the public comment >list. Otherwise the comments will likly be overseen. > Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz - whois as a way of determining availbility >of a domain is flawed - it's not the right method, and as a way for >anyone-and-evreyone to ocntact the domain owner - the question really is >why shoudl a 3rd party have any "right" to contact anyone - i *choose* if >my phone number is published in a directory, and commercial calls (as >it's not public) to the number are an *offence* in uk law- why shouldnt >whois data be the same - fines for people using it incorrectly - if that >was possible people might bemore inclined to give accurate details > Lutz Donnerhacke:Please add thsi valueable comment to the list. Let it >point to proxyy an privacy services > Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz - my *personal* opinion is that it's long >past its "sell by date" and needs to be taken off the protocol list > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@Rob there is a huge difference in someone >registering microosoft.com and and someone who is given a phonenumber... > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the one registrering a domain is doing >somethin active for abuse someone elses rights > Alice Jansen:Participants, please let us know whether you would like us >to read your comments in the room. Thanks > Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - and there should be methods to determine >who that person is - and the _ONLY_ people who would know are teh >registrar, as it'll be their client > Rob Golding (othello):@Benny - but the number od *domain* infringments >is tiny - much more goes on at the _hosting_ level, which whois doesnt >help with > Lutz Donnerhacke:Hosting is easily determined: By looking up the AS >Number from the BGP Routing entry > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So you would like to hand out data for >every registrar requesting data? > Rob Golding (othello):@Lutz Host != Network :) > gpmgroup:anyone offering commercial services should have to use open >and accurate WHOIS > Lutz Donnerhacke:Benny: The AoC is clear: "easy, accurate and complete >access ..." > gpmgroup:Product launcehs and mergers is a poor excuse > Lutz Donnerhacke:gpmgroup: Law Enforcement itself need "privacy" for >protecting their people in the witness protection programms > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup spammers harvesting is a very >good reason for not giving good data to whois > Lutz Donnerhacke:But again: Bring it to the public omment forum. >Otherwise the discussion is lost. > Rob Golding (othello):@gpmgroup - and across the EU (and other regions) >thats the requirement for valid details on the _website_ - but the >_domain_ doenst need to be owned by the organisation using it, and >in-and-of-itself doesnt need *public* contact information > gpmgroup:@Benny I know and some companies in the domain industry who >should know better are scraping the whois > Rob Golding (othello):@gpmgroup - you have to "scrape" the whois to get >the contacts on a transfer ! > Rob Golding (othello):olof - my question ... ? are there >recommendations on Criminalising misuses of WHOIS data - it took less >than 3 days from a new registration before spam started arriving at the >unique email address I used on the domain registration - having such >information freely available and public is not just a privacy concern but >a real issue to normal users who dont need a supplier of dodgy >pharmaceuticals > Olof Nordling:@Rob - I'll get to the end of the queue here and deliver >that one > JorgeAmodio:good one Milton > gpmgroup:@Rob there's a whole difference between using the WHOIS to >facilitate a domain transfer and scraping the WHOIS to send out spam >emails to thousands of third party registrants > JorgeAmodio:sure the users will do a Whois before clicking > JorgeAmodio:consumer DONT KNOW what Whois is > Rob Golding (othello):@pmgroup - i know, but you have to get these >things in th opene before some fool creates a policy to "ban" scraping of >whois data ;) > Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: MOde users does not know how to even ask a >whois question (hint: that's the protocol using TCP/43) ... But most does >not even know about whois at all > JorgeAmodio:0% > Rob Golding (othello):@Jorge - users donteve understand what ssl is - >thats why phishing scams are so effectn hen they just have a padock on >teh page noin the browser bar ! > Lutz Donnerhacke:That's why the recommendation to provide an "all whois >web interface" by ICANN exists > Lutz Donnerhacke:JUst listen to bill > JorgeAmodio:ha wait need to LOL about that > Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: WHy? > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:So why is it so difficult to create a >standard on this, with RFCs for anything else and standards for a lot of >other things, wy is this so difficult for whois ? > Lutz Donnerhacke:Benny: Because almost all service uses a different set >of options, results and languages > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:I should be rather simple imo > Lutz Donnerhacke:Most ccTLDs ar enot allowed to provide the data by >local law. > Alice Jansen:Kind reminder: Participants, please let us know if you >would like your comments to be read in the room. Thanks. > Lutz Donnerhacke:Then the ODN problem. Can you parse an japanese >response? > Lutz Donnerhacke:Sorry, ALice > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:well its just data... so if you have a >standard it shouldnt be a problem > JorgeAmodio:mike please > Alice Jansen:No need to be sorry, Lutz. You are perfectly free to chat >with other participants :-). Just wanted to let you know that Olof and I >are ready to voice your comments/questions if you wish > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the problem is the standard which are non >existing > JorgeAmodio:nope it is not > JorgeAmodio:no it is not even an imperfect solution > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:let me refrase that.. the problem is the >standard which are implemented in so many different ways and shall cover >so many different demands from different lawmakers and registries > JorgeAmodio:its conception had nothing to do for what you are trying to >use it > JorgeAmodio:useless > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:looking at the statistics for wdrp >responses and updates it's less than 2 % who cares to look at the whois >data > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:most registrants don't care.. thats the >reality here > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:And I am quite sure that most registrars >are happy as long as the got paid > JorgeAmodio:the ones who care are law enforcement entities > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:from the registrants > gpmgroup:@ Beeny its easy givem a refund so they do care > JorgeAmodio:and IP attorneys trying to find contact info about who to >sue > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:@gpmgroup what kind of refund have you in >mind? > gpmgroup:Make it more expensive to use privacy if you don't want >privacy to be widely used , give money back to registrants who verify >their data > JorgeAmodio:they will pay for privacy that's a fact > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:so lets see selling domains for 9 usd >paying 8 usd what to give back ? > JorgeAmodio:centralized ? great concept for a distributed and open >Internet > Lutz Donnerhacke:centralized "Interface" to access decentalised data > JorgeAmodio:nopet > gpmgroup:I doubt most new gTLDs will retail for $8 or $9 but to answer >the question an amount significant enough to encourage the change people >want > JorgeAmodio:they want to AGREGATE the data and control access to it > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:the new tld is the least problem... the >existing data is the big problem to be solved > gpmgroup:@Jorge .info has a centralized whois and that is much easier >to use than the distributed .com model > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:as .xxx explained its costly but they do it > JorgeAmodio:that is part of the distributed nature of the Whois protocol > Lutz Donnerhacke:centralized "databases" fail to comply with varying >local laws > Lutz Donnerhacke:Please distinguish between "centralized access" and >"storage" > JorgeAmodio:sure, forget who is funding ICANN? > Lutz Donnerhacke:Jorge: Everbody ;-) > JorgeAmodio:follow the money > Rob Golding (othello):@Jorge - registrars fund it (over 95%) just for >the ability to let anyone-at-all to have a say in how we run our business >:p > Alice Jansen:The Review Team is about to wrap up. Please submit your >comments/questions to be read now. > Rudi Vansnick:Lutz : not really everybody ... some ccTLDs are just >paying a very small amount to ICANN compared to the GTLDs > Benny Samuelsen - Nordreg AB:Taking the night here... have a nice day >evening night where ever you are located > Lutz Donnerhacke:/me smiles. > JorgeAmodio:problem is that the weeds keep growing > gpmgroup:Thnak you for asking my question and thanks for a very smooth >remote session > Alice Jansen:This session is now closed. Thank you for your >participation. Rest assured that the content of this chat box will be >emailed to the Review Team Members. > Amy Mushahwar:thank you

2 2

Interaction with the Community Session
by Alice Jansen March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the slides that will be projected during you Interaction with the Community session today. Kindly note that they are available on the ICANN schedule at: http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29535 Interpreting and live scribing services will be available during your meeting. Attached you will also find the handout for the public. Kindly note that I will provide you with tent cards. Thanks, Kind 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 0

MONDAY: Where do I need to be today?
by Alice Jansen March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

07:30-09:30 -- WHOIS Review Team Breakfast (in preparation for afternoon public session) - Girasol – CANCELLED --- 12:00-12:30 -- Compliance Program Overview - Girasol - http://costarica43.icann.org/full-schedule --- 13:00-15:00 -- RAA Progress Report and WHOIS Data Validation Workshop - La Paz A, La Paz C - http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29531 --- 16:30-18:00 -- WHOIS Interaction with the Community - La Paz A, C 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 Agenda: 1. Outline of WHOIS Review Team mandate & activities 2. Presentation of findings & recommendations 3. Q&A and discussion 4. Public comment period & final report --- 18:00-19:30 -- WHOIS Internal Debriefing - Girasol - CLOSED Note: Drinks will be served 1. Let's go around the table! 2. Debriefing 3. Next steps 4. Prepare for sessions with the GAC and Board 5. A.O.B -- 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

Session with WHOIS - Document attached
by Alice Jansen March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

1 0