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

FW: [council] WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey Webinar 1 June 2012, at 13:00 & 20:00 UTC
by Olof Nordling May 25, 2012

May 25, 2012

Dear Review Team members, FYI, see below for an upcoming webinar regarding WHOIS (ever seen that acronym before?...;-) on June 1st. It's open to all and in case you're interested, please note that you need to register to get the call-in details. Very best regards Olof From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail@berrycobb.com] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 5:49 PM To: Julie Hedlund; Bart Boswinkel; Alice Jansen; Olof Nordling; Heidi Ullrich; Jeannie Ellers; Jamie Hedlund Cc: Liz Gasster Subject: FW: [council] WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey Webinar 1 June 2012, at 13:00 & 20:00 UTC Here is the formal announcement. Thank you for your spreading the word. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]> On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 04:44 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey Webinar 1 June 2012, at 13:00 & 20:00 UTC WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey Webinar 23 May 2012 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council's WHOIS Survey Working Group (WSWG) requests community input on a draft WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey, to assess the content of the survey before releasing it for public solicitation. In parallel with the Public Comment period, the Working Group is hosting two webinar sessions to brief the community on the background of this effort and to solicit input from experts on technical requirements for a new WHOIS protocol, in particular people knowledgeable about technical aspects of WHOIS who can help assess if the survey asks the right questions and in the right style to elicit useful and clear technical feedback. The Working Group seeks specific suggestions on changes to language and questions that will make it clearer for experts to complete. Members of the Working Group will provide a briefing on Friday 1 June at 13.00 UTC and Friday 1 June at 20.00 UTC, summarizing the purpose of this effort and reviewing the work called for in the Working Group's charter. 13:00 UTC click on this link: http://tinyurl.com/85s8fou 20:00 UTC click on this link http://tinyurl.com/7qydxhm The webinars will also review the sections of the survey as they relate to the proposed technical requirements outlined in the GNSO WHOIS Service Requirement Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-… that was prepared by Staff at the GNSO Council's request in July 2010. The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 60 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Friday at 13.00 UTC or Friday at 20.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Additional budget details
by Emily Taylor May 23, 2012

May 23, 2012

Hi all To clear up this loose end, I received additional information from Denise (below), which gives a little more detail on the way that the budgets are organised. You may recall that rather than providing discrete budget lines for each department, ICANN appears to budget on a contribution basis, so that support functions (eg legal, finance, communications) have their spend distributed around the operational departments (new gTLDs, compliance). The additional information came too late for analysis and inclusion in the final report, but my proposal is that we publish it as part of Appendix B, and include an announcement on the call for public comment which draws attention to the new item. Any thoughts, objections? Kind regards Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Date: 8 May 2012 20:04 Subject: Additional budget details To: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu> Hi, Emily. My apologies for the delay on these additional numbers. Attached is the FY11 Functional Report for the Compliance activities. The report includes aggregate numbers for the major expense categories we discussed -- Personnel, Travel, Professional Services and Administration. The report shows data for the FY11 Actual, the FY11 Budget, and the variance between the two. Note that approximately 5-10% of the following department budgets are used for compliance-related activities and are reflected in the attached as "Other dept. allocation": Operations, IT, Legal, Registrar, Registry, Overhead. If you have any question please let me know. 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 -- * * 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.

4 5

Redline version
by Alice Jansen May 22, 2012

May 22, 2012

Dear Review Team Members, This is to notify you that the redline version is now available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-redline-11may12… Links to this redline document have been added to the public comment box - http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-e… and announcement - http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11may12-en.htm Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com<mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com>> To: 'Lynn Goodendorf' <lgoodendorf(a)versprite.com<mailto:lgoodendorf@versprite.com>>, 'Emily Taylor' <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>>, "lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>" <lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> Cc: "rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>" <rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>>, "rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>" <rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Request for redline version Can’t Word and other programs just do this at a click of a computer key? From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn Goodendorf Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 3:01 AM To: Emily Taylor; lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>; rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Request for redline version Thanks for the clarification Emily. I still have a reluctance for ICANN staff to spend time on this but feel reassured in that both documents have been published. Lynn Ms. Lynn Goodendorf, CIPP, CISSP VP - Data Privacy Services VerSprite - Navigate Beyond Risk (Main) 1.678.278.8312 | (Direct) 1.404.333.3779 | (Fax) 1.678.222.3401 www.versprite.com<http://www.versprite.com/> |twitter: @VerSprite ________________________________ From:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>] on behalf of Emily Taylor [emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:18 AM To: lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>; rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Request for redline version Hi there Just to be clear what I'm proposing, Lynn I don't propose that we publish our working discussions, merely the differences between our two public documents. This is similar to what was done by ICANN for the various versions of the gTLD applicant guidebook. I found it very helpful because if you have read the whole document once, you can then concentrate on what has changed. So, it's just highlighting differences in the two published texts. Kind regards Emily On 17 May 2012 13:16, <lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> wrote: If we have the discretion to decline this request, it seems like unnecessary work to me. The principle that we have emphasized is that this is a consensus based output and we did work hard to achieve that. and we have followed all the transparency practices as we progressed. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor <emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 08:27:09 To: <rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Request for redline version _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily(a)emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

1 0

Request for redline version
by Emily Taylor May 17, 2012

May 17, 2012

Hi all Thank you for your kind comments over the past few days - much appreciated. I received a request for a red line version of our final report, and I thought, why not publish one? I found redline versions useful when looking over eg the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs in its many iterations. Most people are busy, and if they have already invested time in reading the whole thing, why not just look over the differences? So, unless you object, I'd like to request that Alice prepare a redline version of the final report, comparing it to the draft report as published. Please shout if you don't like the idea. 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

6 7

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Open-Source Reference Implementation of a Domain Name RESTful Whois Server – Request for Proposals
by Kathy Kleiman May 17, 2012

May 17, 2012

FYI -- I think this announcement runs to one of our recommendations -- having ICANN clearly work across communities, and widely bring in involvement on key Whois technical issues. What do others think? Best, Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Open-Source Reference Implementation of a Domain Name RESTful Whois Server – Request for Proposals Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:24:08 -0400 From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> To: <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-16may12-en.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open-Source Reference Implementation of a Domain Name RESTful Whois Server – Request for Proposals 16 May 2012 ICANN is issuing today a Request for Proposal <http://www.icann.org/en/news/rfps/restful-whois-16may12-en.pdf> [PDF, 183 KB] to identify a provider capable of providing an open source reference implementation of a Domain Name RESTful Whois server. On 15 May 2012, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) chartered a new working group <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/msg01069.html> to standardize a RESTful-based Registration Data Access Protocol. In order to facilitate the evaluation and adoption of the replacement protocol for domain registries and registrars, ICANN is seeking proposals for an open source reference implementation. Whois services, and their effectiveness in the case of Internationalized registration data, are important issues for ICANN. ICANN has been working to make advances in this area, appreciating the technical community's past and present contributions, and committed to collaborating with the technical and policy community to improve the Whois service. Beginning in 2002, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published various advisories describing the needs for improvement related to the Whois protocol, service and data schema, most recently SAC 051 <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf> [PDF, 237 KB]: SSAC Report on Domain Name Whois Terminology and Structure. SAC 051 summarizes the previous advisories, and among other things, recommends that the ICANN community evaluate and adopt a replacement protocol that supports the query and display of Internationalized registration data as well as addressing the relevant recommendations in past SSAC advisories on this topic. Respondents are requested to respond to this RFP by replying to: rws-opensource(a)icann.org <mailto:rws-opensource@icann.org>. The period to submit questions about the RFP will close on 5 June 2012. ICANN will provide answers to all questions submitted to all respondents by 7 June 2012. The final response to the RFP is due on 15 June 2012. This message was sent to kathy(a)kathykleiman.com from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=22253995&l=6333&s=JC3G&m=88…>

2 1

FW: [weirds] fyi: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
by Smith, Bill May 17, 2012

May 17, 2012

FYI - I sent this note to the Weirds list. On 5/17/12 8:32 AM, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> wrote: >Thanks all for your comments on the WHOIS report. I've taken the liberty >of forwarding a link to the WEIRDS ARCHIVE TO THE WHOIS Review Team. While >our work is officially (from an ICANN perspective) completed, most if not >all of us maintain an interest in and commitment to improving WHOIS >(protocol, data, and service). > >While I can't speak for the team, your thoughtful comments are >appreciated. I will note that the Report is now in the hands of the ICANN >Board and additional comments may be submitted at >http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12- >e >n.htm. > >On 5/17/12 6:40 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 01:33:57AM -0000, John Levine wrote: >>> This is a surprisingly good report. >> >>It's interesting you say that. I had exactly the opposite reaction. >>There are problems both large and small. The executive summary has a >>bad definition of what a domain name is. The report makes a number of >>preposterous recommendations, like that ICANN should, for some reason, >>start chasing all referrals in whois (because, apparently, people >>don't know how to use whois and this will magically enable them to do >>so), and attempts to extent ICANN's regulatory reach into areas where >>it has no business (and where it will fail anyway). It gets its >>history wrong, and just ignores IRIS. It makes the distinction among >>the service, protocol, and data but does not attend to that >>distinction throughout. It points out, but offers no suggestions for >>resolving, the basic inconsistency in what different communities want >>from the registration data service. Finally, it simply refuses to >>engage with the question of whether the very limitations of the >>protocol are a fundamental part of the problem. >> >>The latter is the most serious issue, in my opinion, because it leads >>them to make recommendations that are just as unrealistic as the last >>five times ICANN has blathered on about whois. Fixing the protocol >>limitations is simply a necessary condition for doing anything about >>all the rest of it. I sent them a public comment pointing this out >>after they posted their draft report (I also sent them private mail >>pointing out the number of technical errors in the report, most of >>which they appear to have left alone. One sometimes gets the feeling >>that ICANN committees just don't care about technical precision, and >>this report doesn't help dispel that feeling). >> >>I think the report is a shame. It has taken several years and not >>insignificant money to say a bunch of commonplaces, yet the report >>doesn't really help do anything about the two most serious problems >>with registration data: the protocols we have are poorly adapted to >>serving the needs we have, and the set of needs we have is in any case >>an internally inconsistent set. The first is a technical issue, and >>we here are in a position to do something about it if only we >>understand what problems we need to solve. The second is a basic >>problem of public policy, in which different actors want vastly >>different things from the same service. One might have hoped that the >>report would have provided a framework for figuring out how to make >>those compromises, but it doesn't. >> >>> I'd encourage people to read it, >>> at least the first section which summarizes the recommendations, and >>> send a comment to ICANN. >> >>On this we agree. >> >>Best, >> >>A >> >> >>-- >>Andrew Sullivan >>ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com >>_______________________________________________ >>weirds mailing list >>weirds(a)ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds >

1 0

Final Report Published
by Emily Taylor May 16, 2012

May 16, 2012

Congratulations, everyone http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-en Thanks for all your hard work. 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

5 4

Fwd: [At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
by Omar Kaminski May 14, 2012

May 14, 2012

More good inputs. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: 2012/5/13 Subject: Re: [At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> Cc: "<whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>" <whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> I thought it was a masterful job of side-stepping the controversial issues, placing the blame for past problems right where it belongs and making it clear that ICANN can do a MUCH better job if there is a real will to do so. Alan At 13/05/2012 07:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >+1 to all that Carlton said. > >- Evan > > >On 13 May 2012 17:26, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > FYI. IMHO, the Final Report offers improved clarity and crispness in > > language. A few additions/clarifications from the preliminary report peaks > > interest: > > > > 1. WHOIS must be established as a strategic priority for ICANN. They > > doubled down by providing some definitive [and guiding!] recommendations to > > the Board to that objective. > > > > 2. Explicitly valorize the finding of widespread interest/convergence of > > WHOIS matters in the global community by recommending a fulsome outreach > > initiative. > > > > 3. Makes an explicit connection between anticipated improved compliance > > with a different reporting structure for ICANN Compliance that compels > > greater accountability from ICANN Board for outcomes, coupled with more > > transparent operations. > > > > 4. Declares in favour of " *a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain > > of **contractual agreements with registries, registrars, and registrants > > to require the **provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data*.". > > > > Speaking as Chair of the At-Large WHOIS WG, I shall recommend that the > > ALAC issue a statement fully endorsing the recommendations of the Final > > Report > > - Carlton > > > > > > ============================== > > Carlton A Samuels > > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > ============================= > > > > > > ** > > [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11may12-en.htm > > ------------------------------ > > WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report > > > > 11 May 2012 > > > > > > *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 11 May 2012 * > > Categories/Tags:* > > > > Reviews/Improvements > > WHOIS Policy > > Transparency/Accountability > > *Purpose (Brief):* The WHOIS Policy Review Team, constituted under > > ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) agreement with the U.S. Department > > of Commerce, submitted its *Final Report and > Recommendations<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf> > > * to the ICANN Board and this document has been posted for public comment. > > *Public Comment Box Link:* > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-e… > > > > > > This message was sent to carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com from: > > > > ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 > > > > Email Marketing by [image: iContact - Try It > Free!]<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> > > Manage Your Subscription > > > <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=22552788&l=6333&s=60BX&m=88…> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > WHOIS-WG mailing list > > WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > > > > WHOIS WG Wiki: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy > > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada > >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [At-Large] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
by Omar Kaminski May 13, 2012

May 13, 2012

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> Date: 2012/5/13 Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report To: "<whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>" <whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> FYI. IMHO, the Final Report offers improved clarity and crispness in language. A few additions/clarifications from the preliminary report peaks interest: 1. WHOIS must be established as a strategic priority for ICANN. They doubled down by providing some definitive [and guiding!] recommendations to the Board to that objective. 2. Explicitly valorize the finding of widespread interest/convergence of WHOIS matters in the global community by recommending a fulsome outreach initiative. 3. Makes an explicit connection between anticipated improved compliance with a different reporting structure for ICANN Compliance that compels greater accountability from ICANN Board for outcomes, coupled with more transparent operations. 4. Declares in favour of " *a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain of * *contractual agreements with registries, registrars, and registrants to require the **provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data*.". Speaking as Chair of the At-Large WHOIS WG, I shall recommend that the ALAC issue a statement fully endorsing the recommendations of the Final Report - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ** [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11may12-en.htm ------------------------------ WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report 11 May 2012 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 11 May 2012 * Categories/Tags:* Reviews/Improvements WHOIS Policy Transparency/Accountability *Purpose (Brief):* The WHOIS Policy Review Team, constituted under ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce, submitted its *Final Report and Recommendations<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf> * to the ICANN Board and this document has been posted for public comment. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-e… This message was sent to carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Email Marketing by [image: iContact - Try It Free!]<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=22552788&l=6333&s=60BX&m=88…> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS Review Team Final Report
by Emily Taylor May 11, 2012

May 11, 2012

Dear Steve On behalf of the WHOIS Review Team, mandated under the Affirmation of Commitments, I have the pleasure to inform you that our final report has now been completed for publication. Alice Jansen will provide you with access to the files through Dropbox (as the file sizes are too big to send through email). You will observe that, in the light of feedback received from the community, including our meeting with the Board in Costa Rica, we have made extensive changes to the presentation of the findings and recommendations. I hope this clears up any ambiguities in the previous wording. The thrust of the findings and recommendations, however, remains largely unchanged. On substance, our chapter on Compliance (Chapter 4) is completely rewritten, and forms the basis for stronger findings and recommendations than in the previous draft. I understand that the next stage in the process would be for the Board to conduct a public comment, but for the WHOIS Review Team this is the end of our process. It has been my privilege to serve as Chair to the WHOIS Review Team, and work with such a strong team of colleagues, now friends, all of whom have served as volunteers. They have been immensely generous with their time, sharing of deep expertise, and most of all a willingness to consider opposing views, and other perspectives, which was the key to finding consensus recommendations. I wish the Board and the ICANN community well in your ongoing WHOIS deliberations, which I will observe with interest - from a safe distance! 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

3 2