ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now?
Dear all Thank you for your dedication over the past few days. We have got through a quite amazing amount of work, from major redrafts of substantive sections, to great consensus building on recommendations, to individual comments on the report as a whole. We're not quite at my "Oscar-acceptance-speech-tears-of-gratitude-and-sincere-thanks-to-the-team-who-I-now-count-as-my-personal-friends" bit, but we're nearly there. With the increased pace of new drafts, I would like to set out a plan for how we get to closure, and release this DRAFT report tomorrow . - We're going to sign this off now by exception - if you're not commenting it means you're happy, and are assumed to have read it. - Remember, it's our draft report, and there will be opportunities to edit in future, but you should make sure you are comfortable, in particular with the *exec summary, findings, and recommendations.* - Open issues we need to close down are: (1) Definitions of law enf. and applicable laws. Minor changes requested by Peter - are we comfortable, or not? (2) Where are we on proxies? - is there some agreed text to go into the recommendations now (thanks for your work on this Susan, James and others) (3) How much of the consumer chapter stays in the full report, and how much goes into an appendix. (4) Background on WHOIS chapter - does it stay where it is, or does it go into an appendix? (5) any final comments on the compliance letter, please? Alice, please can you produce a clean copy of this. *I NEED YOUR FINAL COMMENTS TOMORROW BEFORE 15:00 UTC so that they can be factored in.* For the West Coasters, that means today your time. On publication, I am still aiming to go for it tomorrow, with appendices to follow a week later. Alice, - Denise mentioned trying to schedule a couple of webinars, and a call with the Board to take them through the draft report in early December. Please can we try to schedule these. Thanks for staying with it, all. Another 24 hours or so, and then we can all have a large drink/non-alcoholic beverage/tuck into a lot of post-Thanksgiving cold turkey. Best wishes to all Emily -- * * 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.
Thanks Emily for your endurance and pulling us through. Your request is reasonable. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:44:50 To: <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello all, I'll be trying to read the key parts of the report today while I'm in meetings. Thanks to all, as I agree we've made a huge amount of progress. Special thanks also to Emily for keeping this whole show moving. That said, there still seem to be some open issues which need to be resolved before we release - particularly our direction on proxies. I'll be monitoring emails today so will be interested to discuss where we go on that issue, as it is clearly on of our most difficult, and equally one where the community will be expecting us to provide direction. I think we all share a common goal of improving the current situation and reducing the incidence and risk of misuse, so I hope we can come forward with something strong on this. I'm also interested in our timelines from here. How long will the report be out for comment? When are we aiming to publish the final? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 07:47 AM To: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; rt4-whois@icann.org <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? Thanks Emily for your endurance and pulling us through. Your request is reasonable. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:44:50 To: <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Peter, I have continued to give the proxy issue much thought. I am completely opposed to removing the language about proxies from the RAA and leaving it at that. I feel that we are skirting a major issue. I found two US court cases that are relevant to this issue. I realize that court rulings depend completely on jurisdiction so this may not apply to other countries. The first is right on point Balsam v. Tucows http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8643528087906257613&hl=en&as_sdt... As I read this ruling, the plaintiff was trying to rely on 3.7.7.3 and hold Tucows responsible for the use of the domain name that was a proxy registration. The court relied on 5.10 of the RAA "5.10 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement shall not be construed to create any obligation by either ICANN or Registrar to any non-party to this Agreement, including any Registered Name Holder." The final paragraph in the court ruling is as follows "Given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we conclude that the "No Third Party Beneficiaries" clause unambiguously manifests an intent not to create any obligations to third parties through the RAA. See Cal. Civ.Code § 1638 ("If contractual language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity, the plain meaning governs."); see also Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 400 (2d Cir.2004) (the RAA's "No Third-Party Beneficiaries" provision "expressly and intentionally exclude[s] non-parties from claiming rights under it in court proceedings"). Accordingly, Balsam's claims, which are entirely dependent on his claimed status as a third-party beneficiary,[3] must fail." At least in California court and maybe in US court in general the 3.7.7.3 language is not going to hold up. It definitely would not have a chilling effect and serve the purpose of immediately improving the relay and reveal process we so desperately need with proxy registrations. Solid Host v. Namecheap http://www.circleid.com/pdf/solidhostnamecheap.pdf The 3.7.7.3 language was also asserted but it was the contributory liability allegations Based on California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"). "The court has concluded that Solid Host's complaint adequately pleads a cybersquatting claim against NameCheap on a contributory liability theory. Neither of these cases were able to rely on the RAA language in my opinion although as you know I am not an attorney. I revised the proxy recommendation I am proposing and inserted it into the report yesterday and in giving it more thought I have shortened it once again based on a earlier comment from James. All of this would be voluntary on the part of the proxy service provider. Definitions A proxy service - we should use the agreed upon definition once we have it.
From 2009 RAA 1.20 "Affiliated Registrar" is another ICANN accredited registrar that operates under a common controlling interest. Affiliate retail proxy service provider is an entity that operates under a common controlling interest of a registrar. " Retail proxy service provider - provides a proxy service with little or no knowledge of the entity or individual requesting the service beyond their ability to pay and their agreement to the general terms and conditions.
Limited proxy service provider - provides a proxy service for an entity or individual in which there is an ongoing business relationship bound by a contract that is specific to the relationship. 1) a registrar is required to disclose their relationship with a Retail proxy service provider to ICANN. 2) A retail proxy service provider should follow best practice guidelines developed by the community. These may include the following: a. standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes; establish a standardized process for requesting contact information for a proxy registration b. guidance on the appropriate level of publicly available information on the registrant; c. maintenance of a dedicated and available abuse point of contact; d. public disclosure of contact details and the physical address of the retail proxy service provider; and e. validate registrant contact information. 3. The best practice guidelines should be developed in close consultation with the GAC, privacy advocates, law enforcement, and other interested stakeholders. 4. ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the retail service providers that adopt the best practices. Hope this helps to clarify my position. Susan -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:16 PM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu'; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org'; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello all, I'll be trying to read the key parts of the report today while I'm in meetings. Thanks to all, as I agree we've made a huge amount of progress. Special thanks also to Emily for keeping this whole show moving. That said, there still seem to be some open issues which need to be resolved before we release - particularly our direction on proxies. I'll be monitoring emails today so will be interested to discuss where we go on that issue, as it is clearly on of our most difficult, and equally one where the community will be expecting us to provide direction. I think we all share a common goal of improving the current situation and reducing the incidence and risk of misuse, so I hope we can come forward with something strong on this. I'm also interested in our timelines from here. How long will the report be out for comment? When are we aiming to publish the final? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 07:47 AM To: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; rt4-whois@icann.org <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? Thanks Emily for your endurance and pulling us through. Your request is reasonable. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:44:50 To: <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Susan I have not studied the cases you cite (and I probably should) but I think the underlying problem is that ICANN tried, unsuccessfully, to regulate the proxy industry via, e.g., RAA 3.7.7.3. If ICANN had not given some recognition to the proxy industry through RAA 3.7.7.3, then I am not sure how the Ninth Circuit would have come out the way it did. In other words, if you do not recognize proxies, then anyone who decides to become a proxy is the registrant and bears all liability for how the registered domain name is used. Because ICANN has mucked up the waters trying, unsuccessfully, to regulate proxy services, I agree ICANN now has to fix the problem in an affirmative manner. We need to tell ICANN this but this does not mean ICANN is necessarily stuck with regulating an industry that perhaps should not exist or be given recognition. And we are not making policy or law, just telling ICANN what we think needs fixing and in what manner. If we tell it to fix the proxy situation so proxy services are no longer recognized in any form, and so that if a registrar or reseller decides to offer such services they will have to take responsibility for any and all liability resulting from the use of the domain name, then ICANN with the assistance of their remarkable staff, advisors and counsel will have to study the cases you cite and other applicable circumstances to figure out how to get there from here. I am confident there is a way, and I am also confident that with the benefit of all our thoughts and discussions, they may get it right :). Seth -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:55 PM To: Nettlefold, Peter; 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu'; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi Peter, I have continued to give the proxy issue much thought. I am completely opposed to removing the language about proxies from the RAA and leaving it at that. I feel that we are skirting a major issue. I found two US court cases that are relevant to this issue. I realize that court rulings depend completely on jurisdiction so this may not apply to other countries. The first is right on point Balsam v. Tucows http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8643528087906257613&hl=en&as_sdt =2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr As I read this ruling, the plaintiff was trying to rely on 3.7.7.3 and hold Tucows responsible for the use of the domain name that was a proxy registration. The court relied on 5.10 of the RAA "5.10 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement shall not be construed to create any obligation by either ICANN or Registrar to any non-party to this Agreement, including any Registered Name Holder." The final paragraph in the court ruling is as follows "Given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we conclude that the "No Third Party Beneficiaries" clause unambiguously manifests an intent not to create any obligations to third parties through the RAA. See Cal. Civ.Code § 1638 ("If contractual language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity, the plain meaning governs."); see also Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 400 (2d Cir.2004) (the RAA's "No Third-Party Beneficiaries" provision "expressly and intentionally exclude[s] non-parties from claiming rights under it in court proceedings"). Accordingly, Balsam's claims, which are entirely dependent on his claimed status as a third-party beneficiary,[3] must fail." At least in California court and maybe in US court in general the 3.7.7.3 language is not going to hold up. It definitely would not have a chilling effect and serve the purpose of immediately improving the relay and reveal process we so desperately need with proxy registrations. Solid Host v. Namecheap http://www.circleid.com/pdf/solidhostnamecheap.pdf The 3.7.7.3 language was also asserted but it was the contributory liability allegations Based on California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"). "The court has concluded that Solid Host's complaint adequately pleads a cybersquatting claim against NameCheap on a contributory liability theory. Neither of these cases were able to rely on the RAA language in my opinion although as you know I am not an attorney. I revised the proxy recommendation I am proposing and inserted it into the report yesterday and in giving it more thought I have shortened it once again based on a earlier comment from James. All of this would be voluntary on the part of the proxy service provider. Definitions A proxy service - we should use the agreed upon definition once we have it.
From 2009 RAA 1.20 "Affiliated Registrar" is another ICANN accredited registrar that operates under a common controlling interest. Affiliate retail proxy service provider is an entity that operates under a common controlling interest of a registrar. " Retail proxy service provider - provides a proxy service with little or no knowledge of the entity or individual requesting the service beyond their ability to pay and their agreement to the general terms and conditions.
Limited proxy service provider - provides a proxy service for an entity or individual in which there is an ongoing business relationship bound by a contract that is specific to the relationship. 1) a registrar is required to disclose their relationship with a Retail proxy service provider to ICANN. 2) A retail proxy service provider should follow best practice guidelines developed by the community. These may include the following: a. standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes; establish a standardized process for requesting contact information for a proxy registration b. guidance on the appropriate level of publicly available information on the registrant; c. maintenance of a dedicated and available abuse point of contact; d. public disclosure of contact details and the physical address of the retail proxy service provider; and e. validate registrant contact information. 3. The best practice guidelines should be developed in close consultation with the GAC, privacy advocates, law enforcement, and other interested stakeholders. 4. ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the retail service providers that adopt the best practices. Hope this helps to clarify my position. Susan -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:16 PM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu'; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org'; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello all, I'll be trying to read the key parts of the report today while I'm in meetings. Thanks to all, as I agree we've made a huge amount of progress. Special thanks also to Emily for keeping this whole show moving. That said, there still seem to be some open issues which need to be resolved before we release - particularly our direction on proxies. I'll be monitoring emails today so will be interested to discuss where we go on that issue, as it is clearly on of our most difficult, and equally one where the community will be expecting us to provide direction. I think we all share a common goal of improving the current situation and reducing the incidence and risk of misuse, so I hope we can come forward with something strong on this. I'm also interested in our timelines from here. How long will the report be out for comment? When are we aiming to publish the final? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 07:47 AM To: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; rt4-whois@icann.org <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? Thanks Emily for your endurance and pulling us through. Your request is reasonable. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:44:50 To: <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? _______________________________________________ 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- _______________________________________________ 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
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello again all, I've been trying to work my way through the findings and recommendations in the report, but am not sure I'm reading the right parts. The recommendations section has several overlapping parts, so that there are several recommendations on basically the same thing, in slightly different terms - for example, the recommendations on accuracy studies and the establishment of a privacy accreditation scheme. The findings also seem to be spread in different parts of the report, and not in final form. I may be reading the wrong version, but its not clear to me now what I would be signing off on (even without the outstanding proxy issue). Is this an issue others are having, or am I reading the wrong version? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:16 AM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com' <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu' <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org' <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello all, I'll be trying to read the key parts of the report today while I'm in meetings. Thanks to all, as I agree we've made a huge amount of progress. Special thanks also to Emily for keeping this whole show moving. That said, there still seem to be some open issues which need to be resolved before we release - particularly our direction on proxies. I'll be monitoring emails today so will be interested to discuss where we go on that issue, as it is clearly on of our most difficult, and equally one where the community will be expecting us to provide direction. I think we all share a common goal of improving the current situation and reducing the incidence and risk of misuse, so I hope we can come forward with something strong on this. I'm also interested in our timelines from here. How long will the report be out for comment? When are we aiming to publish the final? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 07:47 AM To: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; rt4-whois@icann.org <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? Thanks Emily for your endurance and pulling us through. Your request is reasonable. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:44:50 To: <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Peter I cannot really tell what I am agreeing to. Some of the comments are contrary to others so if I pick the one I am most aligned with then that makes sense to me but may not be the best for the report nor group. Should I edit the report in the way I am comfortable with it and then send my approved report to Alice? -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:34 PM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu'; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org'; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello again all, I've been trying to work my way through the findings and recommendations in the report, but am not sure I'm reading the right parts. The recommendations section has several overlapping parts, so that there are several recommendations on basically the same thing, in slightly different terms - for example, the recommendations on accuracy studies and the establishment of a privacy accreditation scheme. The findings also seem to be spread in different parts of the report, and not in final form. I may be reading the wrong version, but its not clear to me now what I would be signing off on (even without the outstanding proxy issue). Is this an issue others are having, or am I reading the wrong version? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:16 AM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com' <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu' <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org' <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello all, I'll be trying to read the key parts of the report today while I'm in meetings. Thanks to all, as I agree we've made a huge amount of progress. Special thanks also to Emily for keeping this whole show moving. That said, there still seem to be some open issues which need to be resolved before we release - particularly our direction on proxies. I'll be monitoring emails today so will be interested to discuss where we go on that issue, as it is clearly on of our most difficult, and equally one where the community will be expecting us to provide direction. I think we all share a common goal of improving the current situation and reducing the incidence and risk of misuse, so I hope we can come forward with something strong on this. I'm also interested in our timelines from here. How long will the report be out for comment? When are we aiming to publish the final? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 07:47 AM To: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; rt4-whois@icann.org <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? Thanks Emily for your endurance and pulling us through. Your request is reasonable. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:44:50 To: <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Likewise. I've been trying to produce a "clean", without highlights, version. I made it through a few chapters but have now run into comments that indicate chapters should be removed, moved, etc. I'm getting lost. (I started with the version on the site dated 29 Nov.) I can devote tomorrow to editing and cleaning up but will need assistance in determining what stays, goes, moves, etc. Not sure we'll be able to get this out tomorrow. I attached what I have if anyone wants to take a look. Bill (The highlighting is a mess, but I think I have it figure out. It's time-consuming to deal with, but not impossible.) On Nov 29, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
I agree with Peter I cannot really tell what I am agreeing to. Some of the comments are contrary to others so if I pick the one I am most aligned with then that makes sense to me but may not be the best for the report nor group.
Should I edit the report in the way I am comfortable with it and then send my approved report to Alice?
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:34 PM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu'; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org'; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Hello again all,
I've been trying to work my way through the findings and recommendations in the report, but am not sure I'm reading the right parts.
The recommendations section has several overlapping parts, so that there are several recommendations on basically the same thing, in slightly different terms - for example, the recommendations on accuracy studies and the establishment of a privacy accreditation scheme.
The findings also seem to be spread in different parts of the report, and not in final form.
I may be reading the wrong version, but its not clear to me now what I would be signing off on (even without the outstanding proxy issue). Is this an issue others are having, or am I reading the wrong version?
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:16 AM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com' <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu' <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org' <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Hello all,
I'll be trying to read the key parts of the report today while I'm in meetings.
Thanks to all, as I agree we've made a huge amount of progress. Special thanks also to Emily for keeping this whole show moving.
That said, there still seem to be some open issues which need to be resolved before we release - particularly our direction on proxies. I'll be monitoring emails today so will be interested to discuss where we go on that issue, as it is clearly on of our most difficult, and equally one where the community will be expecting us to provide direction. I think we all share a common goal of improving the current situation and reducing the incidence and risk of misuse, so I hope we can come forward with something strong on this.
I'm also interested in our timelines from here. How long will the report be out for comment? When are we aiming to publish the final?
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 07:47 AM To: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; rt4-whois@icann.org <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now?
Thanks Emily for your endurance and pulling us through. Your request is reasonable. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:44:50 To: <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now?
_______________________________________________ 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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<http://www.axway.com>.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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<http://www.axway.com>.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi All, I'll be sending out a clean-up version of the Recommendations in about half an hour - and answering as many questions as I can. Thanks to all for so much work! Kathy
Likewise.
I've been trying to produce a "clean", without highlights, version. I made it through a few chapters but have now run into comments that indicate chapters should be removed, moved, etc. I'm getting lost. (I started with the version on the site dated 29 Nov.)
I can devote tomorrow to editing and cleaning up but will need assistance in determining what stays, goes, moves, etc.
Not sure we'll be able to get this out tomorrow. I attached what I have if anyone wants to take a look.
Bill
(The highlighting is a mess, but I think I have it figure out. It's time-consuming to deal with, but not impossible.)
On Nov 29, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
I agree with Peter I cannot really tell what I am agreeing to. Some of the comments are contrary to others so if I pick the one I am most aligned with then that makes sense to me but may not be the best for the report nor group.
Should I edit the report in the way I am comfortable with it and then send my approved report to Alice?
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:34 PM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu'; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org'; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Hello again all,
I've been trying to work my way through the findings and recommendations in the report, but am not sure I'm reading the right parts.
The recommendations section has several overlapping parts, so that there are several recommendations on basically the same thing, in slightly different terms - for example, the recommendations on accuracy studies and the establishment of a privacy accreditation scheme.
The findings also seem to be spread in different parts of the report, and not in final form.
I may be reading the wrong version, but its not clear to me now what I would be signing off on (even without the outstanding proxy issue). Is this an issue others are having, or am I reading the wrong version?
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:16 AM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'<lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu'<emily@emilytaylor.eu>; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org'<rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; 'rt4-whois@icann.org'<rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Hello all,
I'll be trying to read the key parts of the report today while I'm in meetings.
Thanks to all, as I agree we've made a huge amount of progress. Special thanks also to Emily for keeping this whole show moving.
That said, there still seem to be some open issues which need to be resolved before we release - particularly our direction on proxies. I'll be monitoring emails today so will be interested to discuss where we go on that issue, as it is clearly on of our most difficult, and equally one where the community will be expecting us to provide direction. I think we all share a common goal of improving the current situation and reducing the incidence and risk of misuse, so I hope we can come forward with something strong on this.
I'm also interested in our timelines from here. How long will the report be out for comment? When are we aiming to publish the final?
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 07:47 AM To: Emily Taylor<emily@emilytaylor.eu>; rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; rt4-whois@icann.org<rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now?
Thanks Emily for your endurance and pulling us through. Your request is reasonable. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor<emily@emilytaylor.eu> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:44:50 To:<rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now?
_______________________________________________ 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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<http://www.axway.com>.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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<http://www.axway.com>.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-
--
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello again all, In addition to the editing and completeness issues, I have just noticed that a key component of the privacy recommendations appears to have changed since Dakar. Having just rechecked the Dakar recommendations, we agreed that ICANN should develop and manage a system of clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for ALL privacy service providers consistent with national law. The version in the latest report limits this to only 'registrar-operated' privacy services. This seems to me to be a significant change, as it limits the system to only part of the industry. Among other things, this could distort competition, lead to gaming behaviour, and provide a safe haven for bad actors. As I cannot see any source acknowledged or reason given in the document for this change (unlike the other recent changes) I don't know why or when this change occurred. As I am attempting to reach the point where I can sign this document off via a blackberry while in other meetings, this has significantly reduced my confidence. Could someone please look into this change, and also ensure that any other proposed changes to the recommendations that the review team has previously agreed are clearly notified to the group so that they can at least be discussed. Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank@fb.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:45 AM To: Nettlefold, Peter; 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com' <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu' <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org' <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] I agree with Peter I cannot really tell what I am agreeing to. Some of the comments are contrary to others so if I pick the one I am most aligned with then that makes sense to me but may not be the best for the report nor group. Should I edit the report in the way I am comfortable with it and then send my approved report to Alice? -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:34 PM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu'; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org'; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello again all, I've been trying to work my way through the findings and recommendations in the report, but am not sure I'm reading the right parts. The recommendations section has several overlapping parts, so that there are several recommendations on basically the same thing, in slightly different terms - for example, the recommendations on accuracy studies and the establishment of a privacy accreditation scheme. The findings also seem to be spread in different parts of the report, and not in final form. I may be reading the wrong version, but its not clear to me now what I would be signing off on (even without the outstanding proxy issue). Is this an issue others are having, or am I reading the wrong version? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:16 AM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com' <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>; 'emily@emilytaylor.eu' <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; 'rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org' <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; 'rt4-whois@icann.org' <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello all, I'll be trying to read the key parts of the report today while I'm in meetings. Thanks to all, as I agree we've made a huge amount of progress. Special thanks also to Emily for keeping this whole show moving. That said, there still seem to be some open issues which need to be resolved before we release - particularly our direction on proxies. I'll be monitoring emails today so will be interested to discuss where we go on that issue, as it is clearly on of our most difficult, and equally one where the community will be expecting us to provide direction. I think we all share a common goal of improving the current situation and reducing the incidence and risk of misuse, so I hope we can come forward with something strong on this. I'm also interested in our timelines from here. How long will the report be out for comment? When are we aiming to publish the final? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 07:47 AM To: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu>; rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>; rt4-whois@icann.org <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? Thanks Emily for your endurance and pulling us through. Your request is reasonable. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:44:50 To: <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] ACTION REQUIRED: What do I need to do now? _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (7)
-
Emily Taylor -
Kathy Kleiman -
lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com -
Nettlefold, Peter -
Seth M Reiss -
Smith, Bill -
Susan Kawaguchi