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

Re: [Rt4-whois] Draft Advisory from 2010, FYI
by James M. Bladel April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Draft Advisory from 2010, FYI
by James M. Bladel April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

2 1

Draft Advisory from 2010, FYI
by Denise Michel April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

Attached, FYI: Draft Advisory on RAA Subsection 3.7.7.3 posted 14 May 2010; and Summary Analysis of Comments on the Draft Advisory 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 0

Fwd: Fwd: Whois RT
by Emily Taylor April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

Sorry - forgot to "reply all" ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> Date: 4 April 2012 09:16 Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Whois RT To: denise.michel(a)icann.org Hi Denise Thank you very much for that explanation, and I do appreciate the difficulties that you are talking about. I think your suggestion of going back 3 years instead of 6 sounds practical and useful. What we want to do is talk about the compliance effort really from 2009 onwards, once the department started to move from "start up" phase to gearing up to meet community expectations. I am also aware that when we met with Compliance in Jan 2011, there were references to open positions, temporary staff etc, and I would like to have a better understanding of that for our report. It is important, because of course implementation of WHOIS policy is at the heart of our mandate, and you can see from community feedback, and staff feedback, that it is viewed as an area for improvement. Hope this is helpful. Kind regards Emily On 3 April 2012 23:30, Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> wrote: > I'd like to get a clearer sense of what information the Team must have to > validate its points (reach its conclusions about current Whois policy and > implementation) and confirm what can be provided in the short term. I was > hoping a discussion could enable us to reach this point more quickly. > > In the last couple of years ICANN has instituted new internal systems that > make it easier to track and report in detail on staffing, budget and > expenditures. As with many "start-ups," new systems are forward looking and > don't incorporate historic records. To go back to 2006 and indicate for > each year which positions were open for how many days, and to determine how > much budget was allocated to the Compliance function each year and how much > was spent (when Compliance was located in a different department and was > part of a different budget section prior to 2010) can be done, but will > take a significant amount of Staff time during a particularly busy period > for our budget/HR Staff (who currently are preparing the next fiscal year > budget). > > I want to be as helpful as possible, but I'm also trying to convey that > more detailed historic information is not available at the push of a button > and can't be provided without cost/staff time. While Staff is committed to > providing the information the Team needs to fulfill its mission, I'd like > to confirm how critical this level of detail is to the Team's final report. > Can the Team complete its recommendations with the budget and staffing > histories provided thus far, or with information on budget, spends, and > position vacancies going back 3 years instead of 6? > > I'm looking for feedback on whether there's another (quicker) way to meet > the Team's needs given your final report deadline. > > Thanks > 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 Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> wrote: > >> Thank you for this Denise >> >> Please would you also include the unfilled vacant positions over time in >> the same way. When we had our presentation from compliance last January, >> we heard that positions had remained open for a long time in some cases, >> and to complete the picture on staffing we also need to know this. >> >> On budget vs actual spend, I think the query is quite straight forward, >> isn't it? We need to know the amount allocated in each year's budget cycle >> for spend on compliance (which I assume is a budget line), vs the actual >> spend (so that we can look at the variance of actual vs budget). >> >> Thanks >> >> Emily >> >> >> On 3 April 2012 00:31, Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear Emily (cc Team): >>> >>> Below and attached is (corrected) historical data on Compliance >>> staffing, including figures for temporary staff support. The discrepancy >>> between the last set of data provided by the Compliance Team and the >>> staffing information provided in slides presented to the Team in January >>> 2011 was due to the inclusion of temporary staff support in the staffing >>> numbers in the slides. The previous set of figures I forwarded included >>> only full-time staff. In addition, a staff person was transferred from >>> another department into Compliance and the previous data reflected her >>> start date incorrectly. Please let me know if you have any further >>> questions on this. >>> >>> When you have a chance, could you please call me regarding historic >>> budget information that the Team needs? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Denise >>> >>> Denise Michel >>> ICANN >>> Advisor to the President & CEO >>> denise.michel(a)icann.org >>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile >>> +1.310.578.8632 direct >>> >>> >>> Roles 2006 2007 (1st half) >>> 2008 (2nd half) >>> 2008 2009 (1st half) >>> 2010 (2nd half) >>> 2010 2011 2012 2013 Head of Compliance 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Registrar-Registry >>> Compliance 1 3 3 3 4 5 5 7 9 12 Performance >>> Measurement & Reporting 1 1 1 Risk & Audit Management >>> 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Temporary services 0 1 1 3 1 Total by year 1 >>> 3 5 6 7 10 6 9 12 15 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rt4-whois mailing list >>> Rt4-whois(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> * >> * >> >> 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. >> >> > -- * * 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -- * * 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

3 2

Adobe room URL
by Alice Jansen April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

Please make sure to join the Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ -- 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

For discussion Recommendation 5
by Susan Kawaguchi April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

I reviewed the NORC study again it was a good refresher. In my mind we have at least two choices in wording on the rec. as the comments indicated we do not use the same terminology in the recommendation as the study did. Current language 1. ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of unreachable WHOIS registrations (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months. ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of undeliverable (also mentions unreliable) WHOIS registrations (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months I think it would be abundantly clear if we used the term substantial failure in the recommendation ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations with a substantial failure (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months Page 3 of the study outlines Accuracy Groups Margin of error (4) No failure Met all three criteria fully - deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confirmed ownership and correctness of all details during interview 353 23,117,442 22.8% 1.4% Minimal failure All criteria met but minor fault noted by registrant during interview 17 1,101,176 1.1% 0.2% Name unable to be linked to address, but able to locate registrant and confirm ownership 312 23,024,007 22.7% 2.2% Limited failure Deliverable address, name linked and/or located, but unable to interview registrant to obtain confirmation. 365 24,893,476 24.6% 1.7% Substantial failure Undeliverable address and/or unlinkable name, however registrant located. Unable to interview registrant to obtain confirmation. 109 7,202,472 7.1% 0.9% Deliverable address, but unable to link or even locate the registrant, removing any chance of interview. 177 13,949,721 13.8% 2.2% Full failure Failed on all criteria - undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - KK
by Kathy Kleiman April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

Hi All, In last week's meeting, someone noted that the tone of this set of findings is different than the tone of our original findings. I have done some research, and looked both at our original report and our presentation slides in CR, and they are different (e.g., from the Executive Summary: "Privacy and proxy services have arisen to fill an ICANN policy vacuum. There services are clearly meeting a market demand and it is equally clear that these service are complicating the Whois landscape. ") So I've worked on a revision would use our earlier findings too, and added it to this text. Best and great tx to Peter and Seth for moving things forward, Kathy p.s. sorry for the late distribution; I'm trying to use my new machines at work (announcement soon!) and tripping over everything :-) : > Hi All, > I see a lot of language flying around in the middle of the night > (thank you!) and I'm going to put up a notice of concern. I see us > finalizing language, when I thought we were using the language to try > to reach agreement on key issues. > > In last week's meeting, someone (not me), noted that the tone of this > set of findings is different than the tone of our original findings. I > have done some research, and looked both at our original report and > our presentation slides in CR, and it's true, they are very different > (e.g., from the Executive Summary: "Privacy and proxy services have > arisen to fill an ICANN policy vacuum. There services are clearly > meeting a market demand and it is equally clear that these service are > complicating the Whois landscape. " > > I am working on a revision that would include more of the moderate > tone we used earlier, and add it to this text. I'll circulate it > shortly, but wanted to let you know. I think we are still much more on > the concepts, than on the exact language -- and on consensus, rather > than division. > > Best and great tx to Peter and Seth for moving us towards better > agreement, > Kathy > > > : >> >> Sorry Peter. I thought I heard you typing over there in Australia! >> >> *From:*Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:55 PM >> *To:* Seth M Reiss; 'Emily Taylor'; 'Alice Jansen' >> *Cc:* 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'Kathy Kleiman'; jbladel(a)godaddy.com >> *Subject:* RE: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx >> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] >> >> Hi Seth, Emily, and all, >> >> Thanks again for all the good work on this -- I was just about to >> send through these comments, when Seth's latest mail came through. >> >> In short, I'm generally comfortable with where this is going and have >> put some proposed edits in the document, and explanations below: >> >> ·My main concern is not with the substance as such, but with the very >> indirect wording currently used in the first paragraph: e.g. ' that >> ICANN ... give urgent consideration /_to the manner(s) in which it >> might_/ regulate and oversee ... '. To my reading, this would >> effectively ask ICANN to scope its /_implementation options for X_/, >> without actually taking the step of clearly recommending that they >> /_do X_/. There are also some other parts of that paragraph where >> the drafting is so nuanced that I expect others will not know what we >> mean, or why we have been so indirect. I've offered some alternative >> wording for this, which I hope finds the balance between being clear >> about what we want (i.e. some kind of clear and consistent regulation >> and oversight, noting that broad consultation will be required, and >> that several implementation paths are possible) while avoiding being >> prescriptive about how this could/should be achieved. I'm not wedded >> to this wording, but just want a formulation that is clear on the >> recommended outcome. >> >> ·I'm comfortable with including the disclosure/affiliation reference >> >> ·I'm happy to look for alternative formulations to avoid any >> sensitivity associated with 'accreditation', and Kathy's suggested >> wording around standards/contracts/certification looks promising -- >> for this reason, I have not edited those parts, and will wait to >> review Kathy's suggestions >> >> ·I agree with Seth that the paragraph with references to graduated >> penalties leading to de-accreditation etc could be dropped, but I'd >> like to see how this sits with all our other final recommendations >> before making a final call, to make sure that we've got a consistent >> message across our recommendations about the need for a graduated >> range of compliance tools (including incentives). For now, I've >> proposed a minor edit in the attached to include the word 'graduated' >> in the previous incentives+sanctions paragraph, so that we don't >> accidentally lose that idea if the whole penalties paragraph is removed. >> >> ·I don't understand the objection to the last paragraph. This is very >> similar to wording we had agreed in Dakar (i.e. our fallback), and >> I'm not sure what has changed? >> >> Unfortunately, I won't be able to make tonight's call again, but am >> planning to circulate written comments on recommendations 3 and 17 in >> advance of the call, and am happy to discuss any of this online. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Peter >> >> *From:*Seth M Reiss [mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, 11 April 2012 3:49 PM >> *To:* 'Emily Taylor'; 'Alice Jansen' >> *Cc:* 'Susan Kawaguchi'; Nettlefold, Peter; 'Kathy Kleiman'; >> jbladel(a)godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> >> *Subject:* FW: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx >> >> Emily >> >> I think the attached draft can be shared during the conference call >> tomorrow (my morning). The drafting team appears to have consensus >> on this language except for whether the second and last paragraph on >> page 2 of the draft should be included at all. It may be we can >> resolve this during the call, I am not sure. Given the various time >> zones at play, not each of our sub-team members has necessarily had >> the opportunity to comment on each other's comments, but almost. >> >> I also think the sub-team believes this draft is a substantially >> improvement over the "fallback to Senegal" option. >> >> I want to take this opportunity to compliment to sub-team members on >> their maturity and malleability. >> >> Seth >> >> *From:*Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank@fb.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:20 AM >> *To:* James M. Bladel; Seth M Reiss; 'Kathy Kleiman' >> *Cc:* 'Nettlefold, Peter'; Susan Kawaguchi >> *Subject:* Re: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx >> >> Hello All, >> >> I think we are going in the right direction. I have added in >> language I proposed on April 3rd and made one other revision to the >> document. >> >> I am not comfortable with losing the recommendation that the >> registrars are expected to disclose proxy/privacy service providers >> that they are "affiliated" with or at the very least they do business >> with if they have a controlling interest in the service provider. >> >> Susan Kawaguchi >> >> Domain Name Manager >> >> Facebook Legal Dept. >> >> Phone - 650 485-6064 >> >> *From: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com >> <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> >> *Date: *Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:19:10 -0700 >> *To: *Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com >> <mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com>>, 'Kathy Kleiman' >> <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >> *Cc: *"'Nettlefold, Peter'" <Peter.Nettlefold(a)dbcde.gov.au >> <mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>>, 'Susan Kawaguchi' >> <susank(a)fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>> >> *Subject: *RE: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx >> >> Team: >> >> I am more comfortable with this language, but maintain my objection >> to the last paragraph. >> >> Thanks-- >> >> >> J. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: RE: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx >> From: "Seth M Reiss" <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com >> <mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com>> >> Date: Tue, April 10, 2012 12:09 pm >> To: "'Kathy Kleiman'" <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com >> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> >> Cc: "'Nettlefold, Peter'" <Peter.Nettlefold(a)dbcde.gov.au >> <mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>>, "'Susan >> Kawaguchi'" <susank(a)fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>>, >> <jbladel(a)godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> >> >> While I am not sure I share your concerns about the word >> "accreditation" I also do not mind your pursuing alternative >> language that may be comfortable to all. I want to avoid using >> the word "voluntary" but I am also OK avoiding the word >> "mandatory" for now. >> >> Thanks for your help with this Katy. >> >> *From:*Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:37 AM >> *To:* Seth M Reiss >> *Cc:* 'Nettlefold, Peter'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; jbladel(a)godaddy.com >> <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> >> *Subject:* Re: Draft revised Proxy-Privacy - SMR 10 April.docx >> >> Dear Seth and All, >> The word "accreditation" is still making me very uneasy -- given >> my experience with the very narrow "accreditation" of UDRP >> service providers. Accreditation is a narrow, ICANN-led process >> with a few "winners." Voluntary standards, or even mandatory >> standards with certification is much broader, and continues a >> range of services, choices, in local languages, with local data >> protection laws, etc. >> >> Is anyone opposed to expanding the concept, e.g., >> FROM==> "The review team considered that one possible approach to >> achieving this would be to establish, through a policy >> development process or other appropriate means, an accreditation >> system for all proxy/privacy service providers...." >> >> TO ==> . The review team considered that one possible approach >> to achieving this would be to establish, through a policy >> development process or other appropriate means, /*a set of >> standards to be met by* /all proxy/privacy service providers. >> >> and later.... >> >> FROM "to become accredited..." >> TO "to agree to the rules through some process of contract or >> certification..." >> >> I'll try to created an edited version later today, but want to >> float this now. >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> OK. let's see if we can get something that we all can live with >> by this Wednesday. My feeling (and it's just me talking) is that >> we already have something that is much more useful than our >> fallback position (draft findings and recommendations) and I >> would be disappointed to go back that the draft position. >> >> I took the last draft, made some revisions (red-lined format) to >> try to address the issue of process, deleted out those comments >> that I thought had been addressed or are no longer relevant, and >> added one more comment. >> >> By the way my comments are marked ZW for some reason. >> >> >> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended >> recipient(s) >> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any >> unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >> the >> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and >> destroy all >> copies of the original message. >> >> This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. >> MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, >> undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway >> products please visit www.axway.com <http://www.axway.com>. >> >> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------* >> >

1 0

REMINDER - Call today @ 17:00 UTC
by Alice Jansen April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

Dear Review Team Members, Your next conference call is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 11 April 2012** 17:00 UTC Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+Policy+RT+-+11+A… PASSWORD: 27318 followed by # Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+27+-+11+April+2012 Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Audio-cast (silent observers): http://stream.icann.org:8000/whois.m3u 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. Thank you, Very best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org> Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium -- 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

Proxy Privacy recommendations
by Alice Jansen April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

Dear Review Team Members, Please read Susan, Seth, James and Peter's proposed amendments to the Proxy, Privacy Recommendations (+ findings) in anticipation of your call scheduled for today at 17:00 UTC. See attached. You will also find Peter's explanations. Note that this material is available on your private wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report Thanks, Kind regards Alice

1 0

Preliminary report (4 April) for your consideration
by Alice Jansen April 10, 2012

April 10, 2012

Dear Review Team Members, Please find attached the preliminary report of your call held on 4 April. 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 0