Hello all, Thanks to Emily, Kathy and all the others who have contributed to this revised draft. I have made several comments and edits in revision mode. These are primarily to: * Comment on Emily's and Kathy's discussion about whether to reinstate text from the first draft - in general, I agree to reinstating the relevant text, but can also live with some minor softening in places * Seek some clarification on the outreach recommendation (#3). In short, I strongly support the sentiment, and make some comments about clarifying/sharpening the recommendation. I have not offered alternate text for this one, as I'm not sure I fully understand the nuances, so I'll look for others to comment. * Add the additional sub-part to the compliance recommendation(#4) that I circulated earlier, and which to date only Emily has commented on and supported * Edit the privacy/proxy text, to remove the reference to 'legitimate' in the findings, and more substantively to offer a draft alternative to the contentious last paragraph in the recommendation (#10) * Add an 'awareness raising' component to the data access recommendation (#11) * (Re)offer alternative wording for the status reports recommendation (#15) to clarify the timing and expectations I hope this helps. Cheers, Peter PS. I have just seen Alice's email with a newer version of the Executive Summary, which includes the data validation text, so I apologise for making extra work by having made all my comments in the earlier version! From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012 9:59 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Executive summary, findings and recommendations - revised Dear all Thank you Kathy for your work on combining our discussions, findings and recommendations into a single document along with the Executive Summary. I have gone through it all now, and attach a marked up draft, which I hope does the following: 1. I have marked as accepted all the text which I believe has been agreed by the team on our previous calls - that is the wording of findings and recommendations on strategic priority, data accuracy, most of the wording on privacy proxy (apart from last para), the common interface, and the new ones at the end on progress reporting. I may have got this wrong, and hope that others will review carefully. 2. I have marked up new text: - there were some sections of the old exec summary which I thought we could reintroduce since they make important points on (1) consensus building and (2) consumer trust. - The text on strategic priority which is new, recalls our agreement on the last call. This is basically Susan's text. Having reviewed the whole recommendation, it makes sense (I think) to pull out some duplicate ideas (on incentives), and also to put the reporting bit at the end. - I added a few words into Kathy's new text introducing Outreach (rec 3). I like Kathy's text and recommend that it is accepted. - Whole new section on Compliance. As reported on our last call, we've had an outline in circulation for some time, but only had the opportunity to discuss in our small team yesterday. This is our proposal, which is lifted from the larger chapter that was circulated yesterday. - I added the WDRP text (which was quite a popular draft recommendation!) into data accuracy recommendations. I recall from our discussions in Costa Rica that we agreed it was a bit out of place as the second recommendation, and that it fitted better as a sub-section on accuracy. Having put in that recommendation, I saw that we had no text in the findings to anchor it. Taking Kathy's approach, I found the paragraph in our original draft report (Compliance chapter - findings), which described the problem we perceive. - The paragraph on data validation (drafted by James, Lynn and me) is now at the end of the findings on data accuracy, as agreed on our last call. Otherwise, I recommend Kathy's changes are accepted (I've left them marked up so all can see and comment). Lastly, Kathy - you asked about "de-accreditation", and my recollection is that we noted James' draft and helpful explanations on this, and agreed that we didn't need to go further or add new text into the recommendations. Again, if I've misunderstood, please shout. All: Would be grateful for your input on this as soon as possible. Even if it's a short e-mail saying "I read it; I agree" ;-) Kind regards Emily -- [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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------