Thanks for your comments James

Will you be able to join the call? 

BTW, in case it was not clear the 50% figure only relates to reducing the "unreachables" - this was heavily discussed in Dakar, and had full consensus of the group.

As I said in earlier calls - these recommendations may not be perfect, but they do represent a very hard won consensus within the team.  I am therefore hesitant to review substantively, as it will reopen negotiations again.

That said, I am all for adding precision, eg "who do we mean by ICANN", and looking at hard targets within the parameters you have suggested.

 The language about proxies may well be superceded by your and Susan's work - looking forward to having that circulated.

On a point of detail, if you are not happy with the reference to registries as privacy providers, maybe we can side step the issue.  As I recall, I don't believe there was any particular point we were making about "registries and ICANN-accredited registrars" - the point we were trying to get at was the introduction of an accreditation scheme, so it could read:

1.     ICANN should develop and manage an accreditation system for privacy service providers.


Then we can work out who we mean by ICANN here.

Kind regards

Emily


On 23 November 2011 17:53, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Team:

My comments / edits to the recommendations attached.  Please note that I still believe we should structure our Recommendations as previously discussed (and copied below).  Also, Susan and I met yesterday to finish up the Proxy recommendations, so she should have something shortly.

Thanks--

J.

---------------------
Bearing this in mind, I submit that recommendations should include the following elements:
(1) Target (To whom are we directing the recommendation?)
(2) Mechanism (By what means will the recommended action be implemented?)
(3) Timeframe (What is the deadline for action? Note that in ICANN as well as the general world, if something is left open-ended, it will never be completed.)
(4) Communication, Measurement & Follow-up (Was implementation complete? Did it work? What can the next WHOIS RT take away from it?)
--------------------

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Current recommendations
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>
Date: Tue, November 22, 2011 10:30 am
To: "rt4-whois@icann.org" <rt4-whois@icann.org>

Dear Review Team Members,

A basic compilation of agreed upon recommendations is attached for your convenience. 
The second attachment is the same document lightly edited by Emily to eliminate redundancies.
Please review both and email any feedback you may have.

Thanks,

Kind regards

Alice
-- 
Alice Jansen
Assistant, Organizational Reviews
6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5
B-1040 Brussels
Belgium
Direct dial: +32 2 234 78 64
Skype: alice_jansen_icann


_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois@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@emilytaylor.eu

www.etlaw.co.uk

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.