Thanks Kathy and all - I'm glad to hear that the call went well, and I look forward to reading the chat notes to get a sense of the discussion. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, 1 March 2012 7:34 AM To: Olof Nordling; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] REMINDER - Call with ICANN Board today @ 19:00 UTC Hi All, There are some very interesting discussion items in the chat room text below -- and it shares a sense of what's on the minds of the Board. I expect we'll see a continuation of the types of issues raised below in our meeting with the Board in Costa Rica. So if you missed the call, thanks for taking a quick read through... Best, Kathy: Dear all, Please find the chat transcript from the call below, and also the final slide deck attached as presented (featuring a very minor correction in relation to the version sent earlier). Very best regards Olof ------------------ CHAT TRANSCRIPT Olof Nordling: (2/29/2012 18:39) Welcome to the WHOIS RT - ICANN Board Webinar! Kathy Kleiman: (19:56) Hi All! Ram Mohan: (19:58) hi Emily Taylor: (19:59) Hi Diane: (19:59) hello Omar Kaminski: (19:59) hi judith: (20:01) Hello cherine chalaby: (20:01) hi Akram Atallah: (20:01) hello everyone! Mike Silber: (20:01) Thanks Olaf - hi all Steve Crocker: (20:08) Minor comment: Whois is tied to domain names, not web sites. Thomas Narten: (20:10) does the 20% figure include proxy registrations? I.e., are those considered "inaccurate"? Kathy Kleiman: (20:12) There is a separate study in play, right now, as Emily notes. Ram Mohan: (20:12) not sure i understand the policy gap bullet - are you stating that the proxy service is not congruent with offering privacy? Or whether there is doubt about accuracy? Kathy Kleiman: (20:13) Thomas, if you could reach the proxy service (or privacy service) with accurate information in the Whois, that was "reachable" Susan: (20:13) and there is no clear definition of Privacy versus Proxy registrations Susan: (20:13) very confused at the moment Kathy Kleiman: (20:15) Privacy - registrant's name + privacy service contact information; proxy service - all information, including registrant is listed as the proxy service provider. Ram Mohan: (20:15) in the .INFO TLD, over 60% of abusive names are proxied; a few registrars cooperate after the registry identifies a potential problem, but in most cases the registry can't really draw many patterns from proxy registrations Ram Mohan: (20:15) so i don't understand what is meant by need to raise awareness and improve user-friendliness... Kathy Kleiman: (20:17) legitimate uses of proxy services shared with us by both commercial and noncommercial user groups. Ram Mohan: (20:18) thanks Emily! Kathy Kleiman: (20:26) Ram, one of the larger issues we (Review Team) would like to encourage is a "culture of compliance." Ram Mohan: (20:27) Kathy - got it. But there is "compliance" and there is Compliance... Kathy Kleiman: (20:27) Good point :-)! Kathy Kleiman: (20:34) And also Data Protection Commissioners who have tried to participate over the years, but find it hard to follow over long periods of time. Outreach on new policy issues. Steve Crocker: (20:34) Reduce by 50% from what level? Steve Crocker: (20:36) 23% wholly inaccurate. 21% inaccurate to the point of inability to reach the registrant. Steve Crocker: (20:36) Sorry: 23% wholly accurate... Kathy Kleiman: (20:37) "Contactibility" Steve Crocker: (20:37) Where does the 50% goal come from? Why not a larger or smaller number? How feasible is this goal? Ram Mohan: (20:38) in practice, quite a few "non-contactable" registrants are from large companies, where employees have left but the records have not been updated. I worry about measures such as removing the domain altogether if the registrant is unreachable. Perhaps a WHOIS Data Redemption Period has to be created, where the name goes dark but can be restored upon more accurate data? Kathy Kleiman: (20:39) who is speaking, please? Steve Crocker: (20:39) Is there a target level that would be considered sufficient? E.g. 80% contactible? 90%? 95%? 99%? 99.9%? Susan: (20:40) I agree with you Ram but in the obvious cases which I run into frequently where the only information is and "a" in each field Susan: (20:40) I think action should be taken swiftly judith: (20:40) Billing & collection records are from my experience always accurate. Money talks. Susan: (20:41) I agree with you Judith but that data is not always included in the WHOIS Steve Crocker: (20:41) Judith, you're right! Ram Mohan: (20:41) Susan - ugh! Better penalties, with a decent remedy could work then. That's what I mean by the WHOIS Data Redemption Period - the name goes down, if the name is not contactable Susan: (20:41) If the billing data that is verified was included in the WHOIS record then we would have more accuracy judith: (20:42) Yes Susan. WHOis data is almost always filled up by an individual in an IT Dept where there is frequent employee churn. Susan: (20:42) not in a well managed domain name portfolio! Ram Mohan: (20:42) Susan - that won't work in the case of proxy data... judith: (20:42) I am referring to the Registrant. Susan: (20:43) my view point (not necessarily ) as a team member but as Facebook employee content should never be served on a proxy registration Susan: (20:44) that is what Privacy registrations are for Ram Mohan: (20:44) is a rubbish record = a rubbish domain? Bill Graham: (20:44) Going forward, could there not be a requirement that whois data be accurate for a new registrant (some TLDs do that now). Won't help with cleanup, but if done before the new gTLDs come along, it would be a step forward Ram Mohan: (20:44) if we got rid of a rubbish record, what happens to the domain linked to the record? Susan: (20:45) Bill I would agree, the new gTlds should be required to verify for accuracy Kathy Kleiman: (20:46) Quick note that there may be a difference between knowing who the Registrant is, and reaching the Registrant to let me know about a legal concern (e.g., a cease and desist letter) Thomas Narten: (20:46) my point is that the only domain names that people care about looking up in whois is ones where someone believes some sort of abuse is going on. Is that a fair statement? Susan: (20:46) Not completely Emily Taylor: (20:47) Thomas - not entirely. It's an important aspect, but not the only one. Ram Mohan: (20:47) Bill - accuracy is itself not fully defined Mike Silber: (20:47) just to try get a benchmark - given the comment about GoDaddy going beyond simple compliance - what are their figures like? Susan: (20:47) in acquisitions or domain name management I use the WHOIS records of our domain names on a daily basis Bladel: (20:48) @MIke: Do you mean internal GoDaddy stats? Bladel: (20:49) The NORC accuracy study was not, to my knowledge, broken down by registrar (altho this would be very interesting!). Mike Silber: (20:51) if they are willing to share - even if rough or under confidentiality judith: (20:51) Problem being- domain names have become so inexpensive- aking to a disposable consumer item. Does Wal-Mart track who bought a $35 T-shirt? Mike Silber: (20:52) would like to know where a registrar "who cares" sits, so we know better what the worst case of those who do not care are sitting with Bladel: (20:53) @Judith: Considering this has made Internet / DNS participation open to millions of new global users, we do not see inexpensive fees as a "problem." Susan: (20:53) Judith I have always felt that domain name registrations fees do not cover the full expense of registering and administering a domain name Susan: (20:54) If the registrars charged more and used the funds to verify data it would shrink the problems we have Susan: (20:54) companies are picking up the expenses due to the lack of accuracy Diane: (20:54) Do I have a set of the slides available to send to the board members who arent attending? judith: (20:54) I agree with you, Susan. Ram Mohan: (20:54) @Bladel: GoDaddy offers a *lot* for a low cost registration, and seem to be a success, so not sure more $$ will result in better accuracy judith: (20:55) GoDaddy sells services. Olof Nordling: (20:56) Yes, sent with the reminder this morning (my morning) but I'll send you one slightly improved in a jiffy Ram Mohan: (20:56) @Judith - i am not sure data shows that low prices leads to lower accuracy, or vice versa Thomas Narten: (20:56) people aren't paying for domain names with "cash". judith: (20:57) From personal experience- I never bother to update my corporate whois data! Diane: (20:57) Thanks Olof - will distribute to the board after the call Kathy Kleiman: (20:58) On this point, we talked with ICANN Staff, and they mentioned that an expansion of Internic might be possible. Lynn Goodendorf: (20:58) unfortunately, there are domain names paid for with stolen credit card data; this was presented by Law Enforcement Steve Crocker: (21:03) Thanks Emily and everyone. I need to break off to head to the airport. Seth Reiss 2: (21:04) Thanks Emily and Board Ram Mohan: (21:04) Thanks Emily & Whois team for a good overview, and look forward to a good session in Costa Rica Kathy Kleiman: (21:04) Tx Steve! Kathy Kleiman: (21:05) Any questions? Michael Yakushev: (21:05) thanks to all judith: (21:05) Thank you! Olof Nordling: (21:05) Thanks all! Kathy Kleiman: (21:05) Tx All! From: Olof Nordling Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:37 PM To: Olof Nordling; Diane Schroeder; Alina Syunkova; Denise Michel; 'Emily Taylor'; 'Kathy Kleiman'; 'Nettlefold, Peter'; 'Mikhail Yakushev'; 'Smith, Bill'; Alice Jansen; 'Lynn Goodendorf'; 'Lynn2 Goodendorf'; 'LEMON, Sharon'; 'Sharon Lemon'; 'Omar Kaminski'; 'Sarmad Hussain'; 'Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'James Bladel'; 'Lutz Donnerhacke'; 'Seth M Reiss' Subject: RE: REMINDER - Call with ICANN Board today @ 19:00 UTC Dear Review Team Members, With around 90 minutes left until the call begins, I would just like to remind you again to please identify yourselves at the call before you speak. This will facilitate for all - not the least for the scribes (who may be used to the voices of the Board members, but less so when it comes to Review Team members...) Thanks! Olof From: Olof Nordling Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:37 AM To: Diane Schroeder; Alina Syunkova; Olof Nordling; Denise Michel; 'Emily Taylor'; 'Kathy Kleiman'; 'Nettlefold, Peter'; 'Mikhail Yakushev'; 'Smith, Bill'; 'Lynn Goodendorf'; 'Lynn2 Goodendorf'; 'LEMON, Sharon'; 'Sharon Lemon'; 'Omar Kaminski'; 'Sarmad Hussain'; 'Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'James Bladel'; 'Lutz Donnerhacke'; 'Seth M Reiss' Subject: REMINDER - Call with ICANN Board today @ 19:00 UTC Dear Review Team Members, Your conference call with the ICANN Board of Directors is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 29 February 2012** 19:00 UTC Please be kindly reminded to identify yourself before you speak. Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WHOIS+RT-ICANN+BOARD+OF... PASSWORD: 27318 followed by # Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Dial-in numbers: Please find below a table which encapsulates dial-in numbers for your countries of residence. Should you be traveling, please refer to the full list which is available at: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Australia 1 800 009 820 1 800 036 775 Sydney T +61 290372962 Melbourne T +61 399996500 Brisbane T +61 731777546 Austria L - 0 800 295 858 M - 0 800 295 138 T - +43 720 882 638 Belgium L - 0800 79210 M - 0800 79218 T - +32 78 480 286 Brazil L - 0800 891 1597 M - 0800 891 1598 T - +55 613 717 2040 Canada 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 France 0800 90 25 56 T - +33 170618347 Germany L - 0800 1016 120 G - M 0800 1016 124 Russia 8 10 8002 535 3011 T - +7 499 650 7835 United Kingdom 0800 032 6646 T - +44 207 099 0867 United States 1 800 550 6865 T - +1 213 233 3193 T - local toll number ; M - mobile preferred number ; L - landline preferred number Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require a dial-out for this call. Please also find attached the slides that will be presented at the call. Very best regards Olof -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------