John, Emily's recollection aligns with mine. Validation was discussed and it was clear we would not reach consensus. Emily is also correct in pointing out that we are not shy. Thanks for the review of the report. It's been out for some time now with little evidence that it has been read. Your note lets us know that someone is paying attention, is asking meaningful questions, and appreciates the work we did. Thank you. Bill On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:43 AM, "Emily Taylor" <emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> wrote: Hi John Thank you for your message, and for reading the WHOIS Review Team's draft report - by my calculations that makes you the second person I've spoken to who's actually read it! You are correct in your guess that I chaired the Team. I looked again at our dramatis personae and see that it does look like I'm claiming to be Chair of the ccNSO, which I'm not. We'll make sure that's a bit clearer in the final version. Thanks for your praise for the draft report. It's nice to get any feedback, and kind words are always welcome. It was a true team effort, and fortunately many people on the team - as well as being vocal about their views (!) - were also willing to roll their sleeves up and get stuck in to the writing. In answer to your direct question: yes. Validation of data is something we considered carefully. You are right in saying that we received a number of inputs requesting validation of data. This was something that the Compliance Team within ICANN told us they would like to see. And yes, we did deliberately not require that. I can only give you my personal understanding of why we didn't require validation on the way in. Partly, I don't think there would have been consensus within the Team for such a recommendation - but I may be wrong. One of the strengths of the Review is that despite being a cross-constituency team we managed to agree on all the recommendations. This will be vital going forward, as the recommendations will need approval by the ICANN Board and then implementation by many parties before they become a reality. Another reason is that validation only works going forward. There is a huge legacy problem (100m .coms alone, not counting .org, .net etc). The real harm we identified was from existing records that are so bad that no one can get hold of the registrant at all. We decided to set a tough target to reduce these 'unreachables' by half in a single year, and half again the following year. Don't get me wrong, personally I think it would be great if records going in were all validated, and our recommendation does not preclude data validation. In any event, rather than providing solutions, our job is to set expectations. I hope that our draft report makes it clear that the expectation of those who rely on WHOIS is for data accuracy to improve. An interesting development which has happened since our draft was published is the ongoing renegotiation of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. That is a closed door process, and I don't know the details. Reading news reports and general online chatter, it appears that data validation may be a requirement in the new RAA. If so, that would be great for the future. What it won't do, as stated above, is anything about the existing records - which are the main problem currently. However, the reason for publishing our draft report is to get feedback. Garlands are lovely, of course, but we also need to hear where our draft has not lived up to expectations. I hope that you will go on to do your blog piece, and submit some comments. I have cc'd the team, so that everyone is aware of this exchange, and can think about the comments you've made. [All - for any of you who don't know John Carr, he is an expert in online child protection, and has worked tirelessly in the UK and internationally on behalf of a coalition of children's charities to raise awareness of the harms caused by online images of child abuse. John's perspective is therefore that of a user of WHOIS. ] Others within the Team may wish to make comments on what you've asked, and may disagree with my version of events. I know from experience they will not hold back if they have any input to make! Thank you for reading the report, for your praise, and your constructive criticism, which are both welcome. Best wishes for 2012, and I hope we see each other again soon. Emily On 3 February 2012 09:41, John Carr <john.carr49@btinternet.com<mailto:john.carr49@btinternet.com>> wrote: Hi Emily, Hope all goes well with you and yours. I got your message via Sharon and I will make a submission to the consultation on the WHOIS Review. I must say I loved reading the document – it was surgical and devastating – no wonder they are looking for a new CEO. It was also beautifully written. A model of plain English which was easy to understand. I am going to do a blog about it. The blog will be garlanded with flowers and praise but I cannot for the life of me understand why you did not come straight out and say the data should, correction, must, be validated on the way in. Several important voices also urged that but you make no specific reference to those voices in the final recommendations. So that will be a criticism I make and it will also form the basis of the submission I referred to above. Given the precision and clarity of the report’s language in every other respect I find it hard to believe that the distinct lack of it on that point was an oversight or the product of a failure to grasp or identify the point. You could have said, for example, “Several representations have been made urging that etc………The Review Team is not unsympathetic to this idea, and as part of an ongoing series of measures to establish and maintain a higher level of data accuracy it could play a key part, but we would like to canvass a wider range of views before finalising our thinking.” In very many countries around the world it would be a trifling matter to validate the data on the way in and/or to reconfirm it periodically subsequently. It can be done in real time, very fast and very cheaply. In others it would be more difficult and more expensive, but not impossible, and even if it introduced a short delay while papers were checked or taken to e.g. a Post Office to be scrutinised, the gains in accuracy and therefore the gains in consumer confidence, law enforcement and Governmental confidence would be substantial. It is hard to imagine that a new Amazon or PayPal would be stillborn because it might have taken as long as 72 hours to get up and running with a new web site name. Would there be a drift away from some domains in some countries to others where it was possible to do everything immediately online? Compared to the net gain is that a good enough reason for not proceeding? Anyway, my question is: am I right in thinking you chaired and led the Review Team? I saw your name listed with “Chairman” next to it but it then added that ccNSO reference so I wondered if…… Regards John Check out my blog: http://johnc1912.wordpress.com<http://johnc1912.wordpress.com/> Follow me on Twitter: @johnc1912 -- [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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois