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

FINAL edit of the draft report - to be published
by Emily Taylor May 8, 2012

May 8, 2012

Dear Alice, dear All On our last call, you empowered me and Kathy to have a final, final edit, once the whole report was put together. I have spent much of today working through the whole report, and attach a mark up showing some minor changes that I recommend making. As predicted, the new text combined with the old has created a few anomalies. In addition, there are one or two places where I have made changes (eg where public comment suggested we should make clear that we're not advocating going behind PDPs or existing processes - we all agreed to this, but forgot to put it in). I have listed them all out below for maximum transparency and so that you can see what I've done at a glance. They are also marked up in the attached version. My approach through out has been minimalist, and to move existing text rather than amend it. Sometimes, I've had to create new words, but have stuck to areas where I know we all agree, rather than plunging into controversial areas. Alice has also done things like make sure "WHOIS" is consistently capitalised throughout. She will also go through one more time and clear up anomalies in US and UK spelling. *The way forward: I am asking Alice to accept all these changes now, produce a content page, and have the report published.* * * *IF YOU HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS (PARTICULARLY ON LATEST CHANGES) PLEASE LET ALICE AND ME KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.* * * * * Kind regards Emily *---------------* So, here is a run down of the changes that I have made: *Executive Summary, Findings and Recommendations* Page 5 - the new language on studies was there along with the original wording. We agreed to keep the original wording, and sort of liked the new language. Reading the Exec summary through again, I find they duplicated and so went back to the original wording. Page 5 - removed the title "Conclusions" which led into original text. This had been removed, then reinstated, and again reading it through the whole Exec Summary came across as a lot of conclusions, followed by findings etc. So, removing the title, includes much of the text as continuing the "Debate" point, where it originally was. I also moved the paragraph about "Consumer Trust" to the Findings section before Recommendations 3 where it works very well, and introduces the Consumer study into our findings (it wasn't there before, which I think was an omission). Page 5 - moved the original wording describing the Review Team's diversity etc to the final paragraph of "Work of this Review Team" on the following page. Page 7 - Removed the word "honest" (a hangover from my original, bad tempered draft, subsequently toned down and this was missed), and changed "and encourage the " to "encouraging" to fit with the language of the rest of the sentence in the findings to Strategic Priority (rec 1). I also put in a footnote describing the NORC study where first mentioned. It fits better to go into a full definition in the text on Data Accuracy findings (as is). Page 7 - it's marked as me, but I picked up and included text edits proposed by Peter on the Exec Summary (eg "the" included in 5th bullet point on page 7) Page 8 - Peter's text included in second paragraph of Findings to Rec 3, and paragraph moved from original exec summary on consumer study, with first sentence tweaked to keep the flow. Page 10 - Susan's wording and footnote explaining definitions included in the findings on Data Accuracy (NORC study terms). Page 11 - A section starting "Anecdotal evidence suggests..." is added into the para on WDRP to fit with the Findings and Recommendations at the end of the report (which included this text inserted from the original "Findings") Page 12 - Added "in accordance with ICANN's existing processes" in the bit about WDRP to reflect feedback from public comment, which suggested that it reads like we're trying to bypass PDP. Page 15 - the text for findings is new. It was agreed on the list a couple of days ago. Page 16-17 - the order of the final two recommendations has been reversed as agreed, and consequential changes made. *Main report* * * Page 18 - in response to feedback that said it looked as if I was claiming to be Chair of the ccNSO, I have created a table for the membership of the Review Team, rather than the previous bullet point format. Page 36 - new Chapter 4 - I have changed the reference to Findings and Recommendations (which were originally included in the chapter itself). Page 37 - we need to add in the references to Appendix numbers when they are published, and also double-check that page numbers for the report itself are accurate. Page 37 - date of letter to compliance team is added. Page 41 - two "also"s removed. Appendix numbers need adding. Page 42 - emphasis added to quotation about budget, and "emphasis added" is included in text. Page 42 - dates changed, and additional text brings this passage up to date. Footnote added "considered narrowly" in the text. *Gap Analysis* * * We had not really revisited this in the light of our updated findings and recommendations. Mostly, it's still very good, but there were a couple of anomalies. Page 75 - removed "Conclusions" as these are now incorporated into Findings with the recommendations. Full and Substantial Failure are included in keeping with our findings and recommendations on data accuracy Page 76 - included short paragraph on compliance budget/staffing which lays the foundations for the findings. Page 78 - this passage on The Proxy Registration System reflected the state of play on publication of our draft report - ie that we were making separate recommendations for privacy and proxy providers, and two alternatives for "common interface". The situation has now changed. I have dealt with this by removing a few paragraphs that talk about us not reaching consensus, and being sceptical about whether our recommended "voluntary best practices for proxies" would work. Removed the reference to alternatives completely on "Common Interface". and added a few words to try and pull back the sense on how all this relies on a functioning compliance team to work out. Finally, I went through the Findings and Recommendations as set out in the Exec Summary and at the end of the report. They should be identical, and as noted above I made a few changes for consistency (where one had changed but not the other). -- * * 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.

2 2

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan
by Kathy Kleiman May 6, 2012

May 6, 2012

FYI - As the Compliance recommendations created changes before our final report, so too the IDN recommendations may be spurring faster and more responsive action. Congratulations to Sarmad, Michael and Wilfried! Best, Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 02:23:04 -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-2-04may12-en.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan 4 May 2012 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 4 May 2012 *Categories/Tags:* Top-Level Domains *Purpose (Brief):* The purpose of this project is to resolve many of the issues necessary to delegate variant TLDs. The first IDN Variant Issues Project explored the issues associated with the potential inclusion of IDN variant TLDs in the DNS root zone, at the request of the ICANN Board and the community. The first two phases of the project have been completed with the publication of the final Integrated Issues Report on 20 February 2012 and the project is now entering its next phase. ICANN created a program plan for next steps, posted it for public comment, and presented it in a session at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. Based on the comments received to date, the project plan has been updated, and the team is seeking input on the revised plan during this public comment period. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-variant-tld-revised-program… 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 2

Fwd: IDN - a few more changes to bring it up to the readability of the rest of the Summary
by Kathy Kleiman May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

Dear All, I appreciate the evolution of the IDNs text (and see nice changes in the findings). Canwe go a bit further? I was wondering if we might take one more attempt to a) define IDNs (for the many readers who will have no idea), b) and define better the ambiguous term "this environment". For smarter (and more awake) people than I am, do you see a way to merge the two texts below? I truly want to make sure that everyone understands the importance and timeliness of our recommendations! Also, I saw that Peter has some ideas in this area, but did not propose wording changes (I don't think). Does some of the text below cover your thoughts? Best and tx, Kathy _Findings/Kathy: _[from the Executive Summary] Policy and implementation of the Whois protocol and registration data have not kept pace with the real world. International Domain Names (IDNs) were introduced to great fanfare by ICANN in 2000, and in 2010 at the root level, without a corresponding change to its policies related to WHOIS. What this means, is that while domain names can now be written in Arabic for example, the contact information for these domains must still be transliterated into a format ill-suited to the purpose. [from the Public Forum Slides] These are difficult issues, and members of the ICANN Community have worked hard to date, but the current Whois protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters and cannot signal a non-ASCII script. Some ccTLD registries and registrars have implemented ad hoc solutions and arbitrary mappings of local scripts onto ASCII code points, and as a result, IDN Whois data today often appears as a nonsense sequence of ASCII characters. _Findings/Sarmad _Perhaps it should be no surprise that within this environment [/Kathy: which environment?] /, policy and implementation have not kept pace with the real world. A significant example of this is Internationalised Domain Names (IDN), which have been available for registration at the second level for over a decade, and at the Top Level for more than a year. During this time, WHOIS policies were not amended to accommodate the obvious need to support non-ASCII character sets even though there was a recognition that Internationalisation is essential for the Internet's development as a global resource. There is ongoing work within ICANN (e.g. joint gNSO and SSAC working group on Internationalised Registration Data -- IRD WG) in this area. As the need is imminent, this work needs to proceed with priority in coordination with other relevant work outside the ICANN's ambit (e.g. WIERDS initiative at IETF), to make internationalised domain name registration data accessible. The NORC Study on Data Accuracy highlighted IDN contact data as a major cause of apparent inaccuracy. Having internationalized data will also address this source of inaccuracy. [end]

5 6

Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person
by Lutz Donnerhacke May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

http://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-person-120503/ [...] The copyright holders who start these cases generally provide nothing more than an IP-address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, allowing them to ask Internet providers for the personal details of the alleged offenders. The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Or put differently; an IP-address is not a person. [...] One of the arguments discussed in detail is the copyright holders’ claim that IP-addresses can identify the alleged infringers. According to Judge Brown this claim is very weak. “The assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time,” he writes. “An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.” “Thus, it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function – here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film – than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.” The Judge continues by arguing that having an IP-address as evidence is even weaker than a telephone number, as the majority of US homes have a wireless network nowadays. This means that many people, including complete strangers if one has an open network, can use the same IP-address simultaneously. The consequences for WHOIS access are ...

1 0

Whole report - a proposal
by Emily Taylor May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

Hi there Alice has pulled together all the new text into the old document, and of course there are some issues with integration. I will go through the entire text carefully as soon as possible, but want to highlight one item for you. Please raise any objections to my proposal below as soon as poss: The section "Conclusions" in the draft report mostly reproduces our new "findings" but not always. So, the text for IDNs, Compliance, data accuracy largely maps what was originally there. One area where it our old conclusions are more expansive is "privacy and proxy". I suggest that Kathy and/or I combine the Conclusions with Findings. Where the text is the same, fine. Where it is different, we will copy it over, unless it is inconsistent with our amended recommendations. It should just be copy paste job, but I will let you know of any text changes. E -- * * 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 3

flip last two recommendations?
by Kathy Kleiman May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

Hi All, What a tour de force! It's really coming together. Thanks for all the hard work of everyone on the call last night. Quick question: can we flip the final two recommendations, and make a one word change -- the word tables? I think it may mean something different in different cultures. In the US, if you "table" a motion, you put it aside and don't act on it. Since we certainly want people to act on it here, I would like to propose the words "provides" or "lays out" instead. Best, Kathy CURRENT ==> Recommendation 15: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN tables the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 16. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. Recommendation 16: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan ICANN should provide a detailed and comprehensive plan within 3 months after the submission of the Final WHOIS Review Team report that outlines how ICANN will move forward in implementing these recommendations. OFFERED ==> Recommendation 15: Detailed and Comprehensive Plan ICANN should provide a detailed and comprehensive plan within 3 months after the submission of the Final WHOIS Review Team report that outlines how ICANN will move forward in implementing these recommendations. Recommendation 16: Annual Status Reports ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN /*tables */the implementation plan mentioned in */recommendation 15, above/*. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses.

5 7

Re: [Rt4-whois] flip last two recommendations?
by James M. Bladel May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

1 0

FW: Executive Summary - clean and checked [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
by Nettlefold, Peter May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

Hello all, Thanks to all for the hard work on this - I think it is a very good piece of work. Like Emily, I have avoided making any comments of substance, and I think we have worked well to achieve really clear and balanced recommendations, and have worked well together as a team to reach those positions. That said, I did make a few edits and comments where I thought it would help clarity and consistency. First, I edited a few minor easy-to-fix typos in revision mode (e.g. a missing full stop, some places where we said 'Whois' instead of 'WHOIS', a missing 'the', etc). I also spotted a number of formatting and stylistic issues that would be good to address, but I did not make all of the necessary changes, as I expect we will adopt a consistent style across the whole report, and I don't know what that is. The main ones I noticed were: * The indenting of dot points is inconsistent across the document (sometimes we indent them, sometimes not) * Sometimes acronyms are spelled out, at other times not, or not on their first usage (I started noting some obvious instances, but stopped, as there were a lot). I did not try to impose a fix for this, as I can't remember if we're using a glossary or not? * We are inconsistent about capitalising (eg 'compliance' and 'Compliance') - my personal preference is not to unnecessarily capitalise, but in either case we should be consistent This is pretty minor stuff, but would nonetheless be good to fix in my opinion, if possible. Lastly, and of more substance: * I made a couple of comments in the IDN section - I do not want to change the intent of this section (which I broadly agree with). However, I have made some comments about the clarity, as there were a couple of areas where the current text appeared unclear or ambiguous - at least to me. I haven't offered text in all instances, so will look to others to help clarify if possible. These are not show-stoppers for me, but more about clarity. * I highlighted the accuracy text already commented on by Susan, and support her proposed changes to keep our references to inaccuracy consistent (I didn't make the changes, but only highlighted the text, in case others disagree). All of my comments and edits are in revision mode, and none of them are show-stoppers for me, so if others disagree I'm happy for them not to be picked up. I hope this helps. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 3:25 AM To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary - clean and checked Hi all Alice, as agreed this morning, has gone through and produced a clean version of the Executive Summary. I have now reviewed this for sense, and attach a mark up showing the following: 1. correction of a few minor typos 2. Page 1: our work has taken 18 months, so I put that in instead of "year-long" 3. Page 5: recommendation 1 I changed "take" to "taking" in the last bullet point for sense. 4. Page 11: on the second bullet point (recommendation 10) I added that the contact details are "for the privacy/proxy service provider". This takes on a comment/suggestion made by Seth a few days ago in notes on the draft to say that the sense of this bullet point was not clear. 5. Page 11: I think we should put in a footnote to say that "thin" whois will be explained in the glossary (and check that it is!) 6. Page 13 (findings for IDNs): I have included Sarmad's proposed language described on this morning's call. That's all - it reads well, and I think we should be proud of it. There are more nit picky points that I wanted to make about certain recommendations, but have held back. We're done. If you would like to make your own comments, please do so as soon as possible today. Alice - please can you take in these tracked changes and now combine the Executive summary into the final document for publication. Alice - the final document should also include the new chapter on compliance (cleaned up - let me know if you'd like me to review this once you've taken in the edits), and replacement of Findings and Recommendations chapters with the new text from the Executive Summary. Kind regards Emily -- [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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC
by Susan Kawaguchi May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

Hello All, I have quickly reviewed the chapter edits and insertion of Steve Crocker's comments. The only comments I have relate to page 26 · Data accuracy – In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data accuracy, which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of the University of Chicago (NORC) (the “NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study 2009/10”). The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records were fully accurate [SMR1] and over 20% were completely inaccurate. The[Sk2] low level of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust in the WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and therefore in ICANN itself. The organisation’s priority in relation to WHOIS should be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over time. It should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, publish performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and registrants to improve data accuracy. ________________________________ [SMR1]Crocker asks for a definition here. [Sk2]In the corresponding recommendation we changed the terms to those defined in the NORC study. Do we want to use that vocabulary here along with the definitions from the NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. No Failure Met all three criteria fully – deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of all details during interview Full failure – Failed on all criteria – undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview In the corresponding recommendation we changed the terms to those defined in the NORC study. Do we want to use that vocabulary here along with the definitions from the NORC study or leave this paragraph as it is. No Failure Met all three criteria fully – deliverable address, name linked to address, and registrant confrimed ownership and correctness of all details during interview Full failure – Failed on all criteria – undeliverable address and unlinkable, missing, or patently false name, unable to locate to interview I have suggested a revision below in yellow. Data accuracy – In 2009-10, ICANN commissioned a study on data accuracy, which was undertaken by the National Opinion Research Council of the University of Chicago (NORC) (the “NORC WHOIS Data Accuracy Study 2009/10”). The study found that only 23% of WHOIS records met the study's criteria for No Failure and over 20% were categorized as Full Failure. The[low level of accurate WHOIS data is unacceptable, and decreases consumer trust in the WHOIS, in the industry of which ICANN is a quasi-regulator, and therefore in ICANN itself. The organisation’s priority in relation to WHOIS should be to improve WHOIS data accuracy and sustain improvement over time. It should develop a methodology to measure overall accuracy, publish performance targets, and actively collaborate with registrars and registrants to improve data accuracy. I am open to changing it to something similar to what I have suggested or leaving it as it since the community knew, for the most part, what we were talking about. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 From: Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com<mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com>> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 19:46:12 -1000 To: 'Alice Jansen' <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>>, <rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Chapter edits (minimalist approach employed). Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:53 PM To: rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Agenda - call on 2 May - 06:00 UTC Importance: High Dear Review Team Members, As you know, your next call is scheduled for Wednesday, 2 May at 06:00 UTC (time converter:http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT+-+2…) Please find enclosed the agenda, also available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Call+30+-+2+May+2012 Thanks, Kind regards Alice ----------- Tomorrow's call will be our last as a review team, and our task is to sign off the final report. If you are unable to make the call, please indicate your agreement or any comments on the executive summary and compliance chapter if you have not already done so.* 1. Executive summary - Sign off general text - Discuss outstanding proposals for amendments and reach conclusions - IDN recommendations - final text for approval. 2. Compliance chapter - Sign off general text 3. Full report (other chapters) - Report from Seth on edits (minimalist approach) - Sign off by RT 4. Steps to publication - Clean up tracked changes and combine into single document (Alice) - Final check for sense (Alice, Emily, Kathy) - Review Appendices and add new material as referenced (table showing public comments, additional Compliance documents referenced in the new chapter), and agree publication date for appendices (proposal - 11 May) 5. AOB and vote of thanks for ICANN staff support. ------------- * To date, received from Bill, Kathy, Peter and Susan. -- Alice Jansen Organizational Reviews Manager 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 _______________________________________________Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois(a)icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

4 3

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Public Webinars on Draft Report
by Kathy Kleiman May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

FYI- Webinars from the SSR Review Team. Now it's their turn :-). Best, Kathy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Public Webinars on Draft Report Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 22:58:45 -0400 From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> To: <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02may12-en.htm ________________________________ Security, Stability& Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Public Webinars on Draft Report Friday, 11 May 2012 at 11:00 UTC and again at 19:00 UTC 2 May 2012 On 15 March 2012, the Security, Stability& Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT), constituted under the Affirmation of Commitments (http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30s…) (AoC), published its Draft Report and Recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-en.pdf) [PDF, 2 MB] for public comment (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssrt-draft-report-15mar12-en.htm) to inform their work in producing a Final Report. Translations of the report are available: * العربية: http://www.icann.org/ar/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-ar.pdf [PDF، 721 كيلو بايت] * 简体中文: http://www.icann.org/zh/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-zh.pdf [PDF, 751 KB] * English: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-en.pdf [PDF, 2 MB] * Español: http://www.icann.org/es/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-es.pdf [PDF, 683 KB] * Français: http://www.icann.org/fr/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-fr.pdf [PDF, 821 KB] * Русский: http://www.icann.org/ru/about/aoc-review/ssr/draft-report-15mar12-ru.pdf [PDF, 926 KB] Consistent with its initial announcement, the SSR Review Team now invites the Community to participate in a public webinar with a view to presenting its draft report and recommendations and soliciting the Community's feedback on its findings and conclusions. The public webinar will take place on Friday, 11 May 2012. Two sessions will be scheduled to accommodate different timezones i.e. at 11:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC. The sessions are expected to last 60 minutes. They are duplicates and will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in an Adobe Connect room 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 each 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. Staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to: alice.jansen(a)icann.org In order to participate, please RSVP via email to alice.jansen(a)icann.org by Thursday, 10 May – 23:59 UTC to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Friday at 11.00 UTC or Friday at 19.00 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. For more information on the Security, Stability& Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT), please refer to: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/ssr ________________________________ 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=88…

1 0