Hi Bill Thanks for this comment. Please can you clarify which bit you mean - is it the section headed "Consumer Trust" in the outline, or item 2 (headed, Identification and Inventory of existing Whois policy)? E On 6 Apr 2011, at 21:07, Smith, Bill wrote:
Kathy's note prompted me to reread Emily's outline. I'm uncomfortable with item 2) since it potentially limits our discussion of consumer trust to those that use (consume) WHOIS information. Both the wording of the AoC and our conversation with Larry Strickling strongly suggest that we consider "consumer trust" in very broad terms.
On Apr 6, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All, In response to Emily’s excellent agenda and outline, let me share that a third task, a narrow one, that I think should be added to the list.
Per Emily’s outline, Section 1:
“We need to undertake two tasks now to complete this section: 1. identify “legitimate needs of law enforcement” 2. identify “what factors promote consumer trust in the context of WHOIS”
I agree and add a third: 3. Identify “applicable laws.”
As presented at our Wednesday Public Forum session by a man at the microphone, and as defined in our applicable laws definition, there is a narrow set of laws that fall squarely within those the AoC is urging us to consider. As I reread ICANN Whois documents, including GAC Communiqués and GNSO reports over the years, there is as a repeating call across the years for ICANN to better know and review key data protection and privacy laws.
This seems a fixed and narrow task - the type of short research project we projected to ICANN early on -- one for a professor and research assistant. It seems an appropriate compliment to the two areas above.
Best, Kathy
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:50 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting
Dear all
I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list.
Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call.
I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward.
I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment.
Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate?
So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline.
Kind regards
Emily <ATT00001..txt>
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk