Hi Emily, I am concerned with the comment period and how it will intersect with gTld timing next year. We definitely need to allow the comment period to run through the end of February but I was hoping that it would end before the meeting started so that we could be prepared for the public comment sessions. I also think that we should deliver the final report before the publication of the new gTld applications which will be sometime in late April or early May. Just my thoughts. Susan From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:45 AM To: Nettlefold, Peter Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Final version - proof-read [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter Thanks for your comments. I think we all feel the same way! Thanks also for posing those questions, which I've been thinking about in my head, but haven't communicated to anyone. 1. We're planning a long public comment on this one. Basically, it will be open until the Costa Rica meeting closes. Denise told me that there is a new form of public comment, where people can comment on the comments, and I think we have time to do both of those before Costa Rica. Anyway, it means that it's out there for comment until the next ICANN meeting. 2. Yes, I think we should meet in Costa Rica, and I expect that we should try to schedule our meeting day for the Thursday (or some time after we have done our outreach, public comment sessions). We're aiming to schedule a call with the Board this month to introduce them to our draft report and findings, and we may try to reach out to others (GNSO Council??) in the same way during this period of public comment. 3. We will need some time to take in comments and review our draft. I think six weeks after the Costa Rica meeting should do it, putting final publication on or before 30 April 2012 - that's my proposal, anyway. Kind regards Emily On 4 December 2011 23:23, Nettlefold, Peter <Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au<mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>> wrote: Hi Emily and all, I am very impressed with the huge amount of work that has been done in the past week - it has made my head spin (and my inbox explode) trying to keep up! This being our draft, there are obviously some areas we will be revisiting and continuing to discuss before we publish the final report, but I think this draft clearly lays out the issues we have been grappling with, as well as the solutions we have considered. There are some things I might like to change if we had more time, but I expect we all feel like that, and my overall feeling is one of relief at passing this over to the community for comment! Looking forward, and I apologise if I have missed this, but do we have a work plan/timeline to reach the final report? For example: * How long with our draft be out for public comment? * Will we be meeting in Costa Rica? Will this be to complete the final report? * When do we anticipate the final report being published? Sorry for all the questions, and I'm sorry if I've missed this, but before Christmas I have several planning and travel approval processes to go through for next year, and WHOIS is an important part of that picture. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Monday, 5 December 2011 9:11 AM To: Emily Taylor; rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Final version - proof-read Looks great! I have no revisions. It will be interesting to see the response by the community. From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 6:28 AM To: rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Final version - proof-read Hi all I attach a mark up showing my final edits to the Draft Report, which we will be publishing on Monday. You can see my changes. They are mainly correction of typos, adding a couple of footnote references, and making sure that we are using terms consistently. I also split the report into three parts (Part I: Scope and definitions; Part II - WHOIS Policy and implementation and Part III - the extent to which WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective in meeting stakeholder needs). I found that this made it easier to see how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together. There are a couple of more substantive changes: 1. Recommendations - As agreed on the list, I have unhighlighted (ie confirmed) the best practices recommendations re proxies, and inserted the introductory text proposed by Susan and amended by me. 2. Recommendations - given the late controversy on whether the interface should be for all gTLDs or just thin ones, I have put in two alternatives for public comment, as proposed by Peter, and have added a sentence near the introductory text on proxies. 3. Recommendations - Lutz's add on consumer outreach I have added into the paragraph below where it was - I am unaware of any opposition to this addition, or even when it was made, so shout if you have objections. 4. Recommendations - A few days ago, given the discussion of the words "registrar-operated" in recommendation 10, I proposed their deletion. I heard no opposition, and have deleted them. 5.The order of the chapter on implementation (which I wrote) I found annoying, and not sufficiently clear because it has suffered from being moved back and forth from the main report to the more detailed letter in the appendix. I have therefore made a few changes there, which are marked up. These should be uncontentious - the aim is to explain what's going on rather than introduce substantive changes. Please give any final final edits to me and Alice/ circulated to the list by the end of the weekend. Alice -- you will see that I've managed to muck up some of the formatting (in particular I could not get the title for PART III to appear on the same page as the next chapter heading, so gave up). Please can you also update the table of contents. On Monday, if no more comments have been made, please accept all the marked up changes, and publish the draft report. I will also forward an outline of our proposed cover note/ request for comment. Kind regards Emily -- Error! Filename not specified. 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811<tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811> * m: +44 (0)7540 049 322<tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322> emily@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. 730471. 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<http://www.axway.com>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- [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@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. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.