Dear All Thanks for all your contributions to the list over the past day or so. Scope and Draft Report outline I have uploaded the draft Scope and Report outline documents which our small group presented to the Team in our last call. During our discussions we agreed that it is more appropriate for all Team members to input into these drafts. Kathy suggested that we break into small groups and review the documents. However, I'm not sure that we agreed the composition of the small groups (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this!!), so in the meantime, please can everyone comment individually. If we're unable to sign them off at our next call, then we'll go for the small groups approach. Using the Wiki Personally, I've never used a Wiki in this way before, and I like it! This is going to make our life much easier as we work on shared documents. Meetings Sharon has raised the issue of planning ahead, and her point is well made. Many of the team have huge demands on their diary, and I would like to make some straw man proposals as follows: Cartagena We have agreed to a 120 minute meeting, with remote participation, and encourage those present in Cartagena to spend time getting to know each other. As I will not be present in Cartagena, I would like Kathy as Vice Chair to run that session please. London Please would the staff run a doodle on London meeting dates. Bill has proposed 18-20th as a starting point. I propose that we have a day and a half for our substantive session. We should aim to arrive the night before for an informal dinner, and social session. I would also like to include a couple of speaking slots plus Q&A from external stakeholders. I suggest the following items to be covered at our first full meeting, in London - Review stakeholder identification work (or start it if it hasn't been done) - this can include the questions raised on our last call, like "what is meant by law enforcement, or consumer trust" from a global perspective. - Run a brainstorming session on the legitimate interests of each stakeholder group. - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? - Reviewing our Scope, what don't we know, and what information do we need? How do we get it, and do we need independent assistance? - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work. I'd also like to try and agree a work schedule and allocate some roles/small groups on particular issues. I think it would work best if we identify someone within the team who would be willing to draw up a straw man GANTT or similar rather than "blue sky". While we are in Europe, and (I hope) at Sharon's premises, perhaps we could invite a representative of European law enforcement, and a data protection authority (eg Art 29 group) as we discussed on our last call, to give us their views on what their Whois needs are. So, we could aim for 2 presentations plus Q&A sessions, to help inform ourselves. Please can I have your thoughts on this, and any suggestions for speakers. Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? Budget In preparation for our next call, please can we all give some thought to the London agenda, and particularly whether or not this group will need to commission outside research, as the ATRT has done. If so, then we need to give the Board a heads up as soon as possible, and prepare a revised budget. Bill has kindly posted the budget up on the Wiki, so take a look in preparation for our next call. Chair and staff I see part of the Chair's role to liaise with staff on behalf of this Team, if any of you have special requests or issues. This is not to block your direct contact with staff, but to offer myself as a resource to you if you feel that would be helpful. Getting to know you I would really appreciate having a call with each of you over the coming weeks, so get to know you a bit, understand your background beyond what's up there on the site, your views on what this Team should be covering, and understand which areas you feel you can particularly contribute to our achieving our objectives. Please can I ask the staff to set up half hour calls with me and each of you. Alice - I'll let you have my availability separately. Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on: - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. Please let me have your thoughts on these proposals, and I look forward to our next call. Best, Emily 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
Deasr Emily, thanks for the various proposals, good stuff and food for thought! I'd come back to the outreach aspect first, due to imminent meetings... Emily Taylor wrote: [...]
- Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work.
Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring group should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back to their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a regular basis. Any objections? Secondly, I plan to do 2 things, again - unless the Teasm objects, please let me know! - I have included an item on the draft agenda for the meeting of RIPE's DataBase Working Group (next week in Rome, IT) to point people in our direction. While the RIPE DB is (almost exclusively - with the exception of revDNS delegation entries) an IP Resource DB, usually people from the European TLD arena are present, too, and there are important interactions between names and addresses for many entities; - I plan to offer a presentation/summary on the RT4 status for the joint FIRST/TF-CSIRT meeting at the very beginning of February 2011, Barcelona, ES. For those of you not having heard these acronyms yet, . FIRST is the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (a global group, formally HQ'ed in the US http://www.first.org/ ) . TF-CSIRT is a (very mature) Task-Force of TERENA that helps aggregate and focus the activities of Seurity Teams in Europe and the med-rim area. see http://www.terena.org/activities/tf-csirt/ and http://www.trusted-introducer.nl/ Please advise by electronically "nodding" or voicing objections. We can also put that onto the proposed agenda for the next meeting if you so prefer! [...]
Please let me have your thoughts on these proposals, and I look forward to our next call.
Best,
Emily
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
Best regards, Wilfried
Emily Taylor wrote: [...]
- Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work.
Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring group should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back to their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a regular basis. Any objections?
It is a good idea to report back to sponsoring groups and to the community as well. However, deriving individual summaries from discussions and sharing them with others outside the group, who are less aware of the context of such discussions, may send different messages through different channels and may not be effective. Thus, I would suggest that we should formally release summary documents for that purpose at appropriate times as we progress. Regards, Sarmad
Very good point thanks! So, should I take this as an objection to mentioning the existence of the RT during the RIPE Meeting in Rome, next week? Wilfried Dr. Sarmad Hussain wrote:
Emily Taylor wrote: [...]
- Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as
many
of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work.
Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring group should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back to their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a regular basis. Any objections?
It is a good idea to report back to sponsoring groups and to the community as well. However, deriving individual summaries from discussions and sharing them with others outside the group, who are less aware of the context of such discussions, may send different messages through different channels and may not be effective. Thus, I would suggest that we should formally release summary documents for that purpose at appropriate times as we progress.
Regards, Sarmad
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Hi all Sarmad raises a good point, but Wilfried, I would encourage you to mention the RT at RIPE, in a kind of "watch this space, we'll be doing outreach to relevant communities..." Any objections to this approach? E On 12 Nov 2010, at 10:41, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Very good point thanks!
So, should I take this as an objection to mentioning the existence of the RT during the RIPE Meeting in Rome, next week?
Wilfried
Dr. Sarmad Hussain wrote:
Emily Taylor wrote: [...]
- Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as
many
of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work.
Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring group should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back to their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a regular basis. Any objections?
It is a good idea to report back to sponsoring groups and to the community as well. However, deriving individual summaries from discussions and sharing them with others outside the group, who are less aware of the context of such discussions, may send different messages through different channels and may not be effective. Thus, I would suggest that we should formally release summary documents for that purpose at appropriate times as we progress.
Regards, Sarmad
_______________________________________________ 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
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
I didn't intend to do more than that (next week), plus distributing the info about the Wiki on the ICANN Community platform - which is public information anyway. For next year, I agree, we should try to have a regularly maintained and reasonably up-to-date presentation on stock. Wilfried. Emily Taylor wrote:
Hi all
Sarmad raises a good point, but Wilfried, I would encourage you to mention the RT at RIPE, in a kind of "watch this space, we'll be doing outreach to relevant communities..."
Any objections to this approach?
E On 12 Nov 2010, at 10:41, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Very good point thanks!
So, should I take this as an objection to mentioning the existence of the RT during the RIPE Meeting in Rome, next week?
Wilfried
Dr. Sarmad Hussain wrote:
Emily Taylor wrote: [...]
- Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as
many
of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work.
Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring group should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back to their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a regular basis. Any objections?
It is a good idea to report back to sponsoring groups and to the community as well. However, deriving individual summaries from discussions and sharing them with others outside the group, who are less aware of the context of such discussions, may send different messages through different channels and may not be effective. Thus, I would suggest that we should formally release summary documents for that purpose at appropriate times as we progress.
Regards, Sarmad
_______________________________________________ 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
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
Not from me. I like the idea of having a page that summarizes our work to date that we can refer to when doing outreach. On Nov 12, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: Hi all Sarmad raises a good point, but Wilfried, I would encourage you to mention the RT at RIPE, in a kind of "watch this space, we'll be doing outreach to relevant communities..." Any objections to this approach? E On 12 Nov 2010, at 10:41, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: Very good point thanks! So, should I take this as an objection to mentioning the existence of the RT during the RIPE Meeting in Rome, next week? Wilfried Dr. Sarmad Hussain wrote: Emily Taylor wrote: [...] - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work. Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring group should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back to their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a regular basis. Any objections? It is a good idea to report back to sponsoring groups and to the community as well. However, deriving individual summaries from discussions and sharing them with others outside the group, who are less aware of the context of such discussions, may send different messages through different channels and may not be effective. Thus, I would suggest that we should formally release summary documents for that purpose at appropriate times as we progress. Regards, Sarmad _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/logo310.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk/> <ATT00001..txt>
Dear Emily and All, Thanks. It would be great if we can collate and post links to all the relevant documents for WHOIS on the wiki as well, as a reference point on various issues for our discussions. Regards, Sarmad From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 2:44 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps Dear All Thanks for all your contributions to the list over the past day or so. Scope and Draft Report outline I have uploaded the draft Scope and Report outline documents which our small group presented to the Team in our last call. During our discussions we agreed that it is more appropriate for all Team members to input into these drafts. Kathy suggested that we break into small groups and review the documents. However, I'm not sure that we agreed the composition of the small groups (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this!!), so in the meantime, please can everyone comment individually. If we're unable to sign them off at our next call, then we'll go for the small groups approach. Using the Wiki Personally, I've never used a Wiki in this way before, and I like it! This is going to make our life much easier as we work on shared documents. Meetings Sharon has raised the issue of planning ahead, and her point is well made. Many of the team have huge demands on their diary, and I would like to make some straw man proposals as follows: Cartagena We have agreed to a 120 minute meeting, with remote participation, and encourage those present in Cartagena to spend time getting to know each other. As I will not be present in Cartagena, I would like Kathy as Vice Chair to run that session please. London Please would the staff run a doodle on London meeting dates. Bill has proposed 18-20th as a starting point. I propose that we have a day and a half for our substantive session. We should aim to arrive the night before for an informal dinner, and social session. I would also like to include a couple of speaking slots plus Q&A from external stakeholders. I suggest the following items to be covered at our first full meeting, in London - Review stakeholder identification work (or start it if it hasn't been done) - this can include the questions raised on our last call, like "what is meant by law enforcement, or consumer trust" from a global perspective. - Run a brainstorming session on the legitimate interests of each stakeholder group. - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? - Reviewing our Scope, what don't we know, and what information do we need? How do we get it, and do we need independent assistance? - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work. I'd also like to try and agree a work schedule and allocate some roles/small groups on particular issues. I think it would work best if we identify someone within the team who would be willing to draw up a straw man GANTT or similar rather than "blue sky". While we are in Europe, and (I hope) at Sharon's premises, perhaps we could invite a representative of European law enforcement, and a data protection authority (eg Art 29 group) as we discussed on our last call, to give us their views on what their Whois needs are. So, we could aim for 2 presentations plus Q&A sessions, to help inform ourselves. Please can I have your thoughts on this, and any suggestions for speakers. Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? Budget In preparation for our next call, please can we all give some thought to the London agenda, and particularly whether or not this group will need to commission outside research, as the ATRT has done. If so, then we need to give the Board a heads up as soon as possible, and prepare a revised budget. Bill has kindly posted the budget up on the Wiki, so take a look in preparation for our next call. Chair and staff I see part of the Chair's role to liaise with staff on behalf of this Team, if any of you have special requests or issues. This is not to block your direct contact with staff, but to offer myself as a resource to you if you feel that would be helpful. Getting to know you I would really appreciate having a call with each of you over the coming weeks, so get to know you a bit, understand your background beyond what's up there on the site, your views on what this Team should be covering, and understand which areas you feel you can particularly contribute to our achieving our objectives. Please can I ask the staff to set up half hour calls with me and each of you. Alice - I'll let you have my availability separately. Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on: - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. Please let me have your thoughts on these proposals, and I look forward to our next call. Best, Emily Image removed by sender. Emily Taylor Consultant (Internet Law and Governance) 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 12:34:00
Sarmad, all, I am about to put such a page together, thanks for having the same idea! Wilfried Dr. Sarmad Hussain wrote:
Dear Emily and All,
Thanks. It would be great if we can collate and post links to all the relevant documents for WHOIS on the wiki as well, as a reference point on various issues for our discussions.
Regards, Sarmad
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 2:44 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Dear All
Thanks for all your contributions to the list over the past day or so.
Scope and Draft Report outline
I have uploaded the draft Scope and Report outline documents which our small group presented to the Team in our last call.
During our discussions we agreed that it is more appropriate for all Team members to input into these drafts. Kathy suggested that we break into small groups and review the documents. However, I'm not sure that we agreed the composition of the small groups (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this!!), so in the meantime, please can everyone comment individually. If we're unable to sign them off at our next call, then we'll go for the small groups approach.
Using the Wiki
Personally, I've never used a Wiki in this way before, and I like it! This is going to make our life much easier as we work on shared documents.
Meetings
Sharon has raised the issue of planning ahead, and her point is well made. Many of the team have huge demands on their diary, and I would like to make some straw man proposals as follows:
Cartagena
We have agreed to a 120 minute meeting, with remote participation, and encourage those present in Cartagena to spend time getting to know each other.
As I will not be present in Cartagena, I would like Kathy as Vice Chair to run that session please.
London
Please would the staff run a doodle on London meeting dates. Bill has proposed 18-20th as a starting point.
I propose that we have a day and a half for our substantive session. We should aim to arrive the night before for an informal dinner, and social session. I would also like to include a couple of speaking slots plus Q&A from external stakeholders.
I suggest the following items to be covered at our first full meeting, in London
- Review stakeholder identification work (or start it if it hasn't been done) - this can include the questions raised on our last call, like "what is meant by law enforcement, or consumer trust" from a global perspective.
- Run a brainstorming session on the legitimate interests of each stakeholder group.
- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
- Reviewing our Scope, what don't we know, and what information do we need? How do we get it, and do we need independent assistance?
- Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work.
I'd also like to try and agree a work schedule and allocate some roles/small groups on particular issues. I think it would work best if we identify someone within the team who would be willing to draw up a straw man GANTT or similar rather than "blue sky".
While we are in Europe, and (I hope) at Sharon's premises, perhaps we could invite a representative of European law enforcement, and a data protection authority (eg Art 29 group) as we discussed on our last call, to give us their views on what their Whois needs are. So, we could aim for 2 presentations plus Q&A sessions, to help inform ourselves. Please can I have your thoughts on this, and any suggestions for speakers.
Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings
I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate
- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to:
- the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees
- the Board
- any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task
I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions?
Budget
In preparation for our next call, please can we all give some thought to the London agenda, and particularly whether or not this group will need to commission outside research, as the ATRT has done. If so, then we need to give the Board a heads up as soon as possible, and prepare a revised budget. Bill has kindly posted the budget up on the Wiki, so take a look in preparation for our next call.
Chair and staff
I see part of the Chair's role to liaise with staff on behalf of this Team, if any of you have special requests or issues. This is not to block your direct contact with staff, but to offer myself as a resource to you if you feel that would be helpful.
Getting to know you
I would really appreciate having a call with each of you over the coming weeks, so get to know you a bit, understand your background beyond what's up there on the site, your views on what this Team should be covering, and understand which areas you feel you can particularly contribute to our achieving our objectives. Please can I ask the staff to set up half hour calls with me and each of you. Alice - I'll let you have my availability separately.
Our next call
I propose that in our next call we focus on:
- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective
- identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
Please let me have your thoughts on these proposals, and I look forward to our next call.
Best,
Emily
Image removed by sender. Emily Taylor Consultant (Internet Law and Governance)
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 12:34:00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Hi Emily et al:
- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days.
Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings
I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate
- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible.
- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task
I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions?
agreed
Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on:
- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
agreed.
Hi Kim, Team! Kim G. von Arx wrote:
Hi Emily et al:
- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday get-together. Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents.
I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days.
"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings
I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate
- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible.
OK for me.
- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task
I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions?
agreed
Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on:
- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
agreed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfried
Hi Wilfried: I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright. Kim On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Kim, Team!
Kim G. von Arx wrote:
Hi Emily et al:
- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday get-together.
Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents.
I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days.
"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings
I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate
- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible.
OK for me.
- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task
I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions?
agreed
Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on:
- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
agreed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfried
I see, thanks! -Wilfried Kim G. von Arx wrote:
Hi Wilfried:
I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Kim, Team!
Kim G. von Arx wrote:
Hi Emily et al:
- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday get-together.
Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents.
I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days.
"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings
I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate
- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible.
OK for me.
- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task
I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions?
agreed
Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on:
- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
agreed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfried
With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not. Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios. I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM To: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Wilfried:
I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Kim, Team!
Kim G. von Arx wrote:
Hi Emily et al:
- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday get-together.
Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents.
I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days.
"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings
I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate
- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible.
OK for me.
- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task
I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions?
agreed
Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on:
- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
agreed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfried
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Hi Bill: I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep each broad enough. In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views. Kim On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:
With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not.
Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios.
I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM To: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Wilfried:
I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Kim, Team!
Kim G. von Arx wrote:
Hi Emily et al:
- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday get-together.
Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents.
I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days.
"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings
I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate
- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible.
OK for me.
- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task
I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions?
agreed
Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on:
- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
agreed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfried
_______________________________________________ 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 Kim, I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us to invite input. However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and concerns of one group against the other. As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, malware, and the like). In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS. Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I believe we need a different approach for a way forward. Regards, Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are.
I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep each broad enough.
In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:
With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not.
Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios.
I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM To: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Wilfried:
I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Kim, Team!
Kim G. von Arx wrote:
Hi Emily et al:
- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday get-together.
Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents.
I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days.
"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings
I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate
- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible.
OK for me.
- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task
I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions?
agreed
Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on:
- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global
perspective
- identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
agreed.
------------------------------------------------------------------ --
Wilfried
_______________________________________________ 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 Bill: I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this raises three major problems: 1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further information from our stakeholders. 2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services. 3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of this new TLD initiative. Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each. Kim On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote:
Hi Kim,
I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us to invite input.
However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and concerns of one group against the other.
As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, malware, and the like).
In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS.
Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I believe we need a different approach for a way forward.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are.
I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep each broad enough.
In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:
With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not.
Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios.
I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM To: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Wilfried:
I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Kim, Team!
Kim G. von Arx wrote:
Hi Emily et al:
> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point?
I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday get-together.
Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents.
I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days.
"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings > > I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate > > - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting
I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible.
OK for me.
> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: > - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees > - the Board > - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task > > I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions?
agreed
> > Our next call > I propose that in our next call we focus on: > > - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective > - identifying what, if any, external resources we need.
agreed.
------------------------------------------------------------------ --
Wilfried
_______________________________________________ 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
Kim, I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions". As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes. Regards, Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this raises three major problems:
1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further information from our stakeholders.
2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services.
3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of this new TLD initiative.
Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote:
Hi Kim,
I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us to invite input.
However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and concerns of one group against the other.
As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, malware, and the like).
In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS.
Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I believe we need a different approach for a way forward.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are.
I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep each broad enough.
In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:
With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not.
Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios.
I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM To: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Wilfried:
I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Kim, Team!
Kim G. von Arx wrote:
> Hi Emily et al: > > >> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? > > > I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation
+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday get-together.
Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents.
> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days.
"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners?
>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >> >> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate >> >> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting > > > I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible.
OK for me.
>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >> - the Board >> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >> >> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? > > > agreed > >> >> Our next call >> I propose that in our next call we focus on: >> >> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective >> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. > > > agreed. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
Wilfried
_______________________________________________ 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
Actually that is very limiting, and as you had pointed out, there numerous reasons to have certain fields available and others not etc. Therefore, we should try to capture as many views we can within predetermined groups of interest. Having said that, however, I do want to follow your general tenant, ie, keep is a broad as possible. Kim Please excuse my typos! This is sent from my iPhone. On Nov 12, 2010, at 14:31, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> wrote:
Kim,
I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions".
As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this raises three major problems:
1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further information from our stakeholders.
2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services.
3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of this new TLD initiative.
Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote:
Hi Kim,
I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us to invite input.
However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and concerns of one group against the other.
As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, malware, and the like).
In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS.
Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I believe we need a different approach for a way forward.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are.
I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep each broad enough.
In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:
With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not.
Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios.
I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM To: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Wilfried:
I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> Hi Kim, Team! > > Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >> Hi Emily et al: >> >> >>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? >> >> >> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation > > +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would > already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday > get-together. > > Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents. > >> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days. > > "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? > >>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>> >>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate >>> >>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >> >> >> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible. > > OK for me. > >>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>> - the Board >>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >>> >>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? >> >> >> agreed >> >>> >>> Our next call >>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>> >>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective >>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >> >> >> agreed. >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- ---- > > Wilfried
_______________________________________________ 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
Limiting in what way, if we're willing to consider a more fine-grained approach to accessing the information?
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 11:47 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Actually that is very limiting, and as you had pointed out, there numerous reasons to have certain fields available and others not etc.
Therefore, we should try to capture as many views we can within predetermined groups of interest.
Having said that, however, I do want to follow your general tenant, ie, keep is a broad as possible.
Kim
Please excuse my typos! This is sent from my iPhone.
On Nov 12, 2010, at 14:31, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> wrote:
Kim,
I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions".
As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this raises three major problems:
1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further information from our stakeholders.
2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services.
3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of this new TLD initiative.
Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote:
Hi Kim,
I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us to invite input.
However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and concerns of one group against the other.
As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, malware, and the like).
In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS.
Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I believe we need a different approach for a way forward.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are.
I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep each broad enough.
In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:
With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not.
Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios.
I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
> -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] > On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM > To: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at > Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > > Hi Wilfried: > > I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, > but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, > e.g., copyright. > > Kim > > On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >> Hi Kim, Team! >> >> Kim G. von Arx wrote: >> >>> Hi Emily et al: >>> >>> >>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the > Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we > invite someone from the staff to cover this point? >>> >>> >>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation >> >> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic > would >> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the > Sunday >> get-together. >> >> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or > documents. >> >>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have > started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face > meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke > proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as > provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would > like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights- holder > constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to > format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face > meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the > presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for > the remaining 1.5 days. >> >> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? >> >>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>>> >>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose > the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our > mandate >>>> >>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >>> >>> >>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our > face to face time as much as possible. >> >> OK for me. >> >>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>>> - the Board >>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >>>> >>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the > relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them > what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our > task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by > different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings > and help lead the discussions? >>> >>> >>> agreed >>> >>>> >>>> Our next call >>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>>> >>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective >>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >>> >>> >>> agreed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- > ---- >> >> Wilfried > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Bill: I was just referring to your two groupings of access and no access which may be limiting in the sense that each of those groups have various subsets with respect to what data they want/need to have access or restrict access to. The difference, of course, is the reason for those differing needs/wants. In order for us to conduct a successful and effective review, we need to understand those reasons. My point in my previous email was that we need to establish interest groups to not get bogged down with 1000s of individual views. Having said that, however, I do agree with you that we ought to ensure that we do not get tangled up in the past trench wars and as such need to be careful where and how we tread. Kim On 12 Nov 2010, at 14:57, Smith, Bill wrote:
Limiting in what way, if we're willing to consider a more fine-grained approach to accessing the information?
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 11:47 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Actually that is very limiting, and as you had pointed out, there numerous reasons to have certain fields available and others not etc.
Therefore, we should try to capture as many views we can within predetermined groups of interest.
Having said that, however, I do want to follow your general tenant, ie, keep is a broad as possible.
Kim
Please excuse my typos! This is sent from my iPhone.
On Nov 12, 2010, at 14:31, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> wrote:
Kim,
I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions".
As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this raises three major problems:
1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further information from our stakeholders.
2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services.
3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of this new TLD initiative.
Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote:
Hi Kim,
I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us to invite input.
However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and concerns of one group against the other.
As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, malware, and the like).
In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS.
Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I believe we need a different approach for a way forward.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are.
I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep each broad enough.
In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:
> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not. > > Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios. > > I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM >> To: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at >> Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >> >> Hi Wilfried: >> >> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, >> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, >> e.g., copyright. >> >> Kim >> >> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: >> >>> Hi Kim, Team! >>> >>> Kim G. von Arx wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Emily et al: >>>> >>>> >>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the >> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we >> invite someone from the staff to cover this point? >>>> >>>> >>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation >>> >>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic >> would >>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the >> Sunday >>> get-together. >>> >>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or >> documents. >>> >>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have >> started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face >> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke >> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as >> provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would >> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights- holder >> constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to >> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face >> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the >> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for >> the remaining 1.5 days. >>> >>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? >>> >>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>>>> >>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose >> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our >> mandate >>>>> >>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >>>> >>>> >>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our >> face to face time as much as possible. >>> >>> OK for me. >>> >>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>>>> - the Board >>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >>>>> >>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the >> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them >> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our >> task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by >> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings >> and help lead the discussions? >>>> >>>> >>>> agreed >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Our next call >>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>>>> >>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective >>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >>>> >>>> >>>> agreed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- >> ---- >>> >>> Wilfried >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
Kim G. von Arx wrote:
Actually that is very limiting, and as you had pointed out, there numerous reasons to have certain fields available and others not etc.
I think that we are living in a sort of 3-dimensional universe, like: - which elements of data are collected (see AoC definition for a first cut)? - which elements c|should be publicly visible? - for any restricted elements, which parties c|should have access? . and as a sub-issue here, under which provisions and/or (legal) control & notification scheme? Of course some people prefer simplistic solutions like "no access at all" and "everything has to be public". I do have my own preference and point of view, but I guess that is for a different thread.
Therefore, we should try to capture as many views we can within predetermined groups of interest.
I agree, some sort of aggregation and clustering will have to happen to prevent us from getting confused and derailed
Having said that, however, I do want to follow your general tenant, ie, keep is a broad as possible.
Which may get us back to restart the thinking on mechanisms for manageable input, comment and feedback mechanisms (othe than the obvious outreach to identified bodies and in meetings?
Kim
Wilfried
Please excuse my typos! This is sent from my iPhone.
PS: same here, although I don't need the help of a mobile device for my creations. I profoundly apologize, it is never my intention to misuse the English language or to make my contributions hard to read
On Nov 12, 2010, at 14:31, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> wrote:
Kim,
I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions".
As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this raises three major problems:
1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further information from our stakeholders.
2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services.
3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of this new TLD initiative.
Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote:
Hi Kim,
I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you
have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us to invite input.
However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and
consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and concerns of one group against the other.
As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some
consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, malware, and the like).
In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and
restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS.
Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit,
for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I believe we need a different approach for a way forward.
Regards,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps
Hi Bill:
I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are.
I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates
so
far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three
groups
will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep each broad enough.
In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect
that
we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings
to
provide their respective views.
Kim
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote:
With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation
regarding
where concerns originate from? I think not.
Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property.
Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need
for
anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to
protect
their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios.
I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a
preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests.
>-----Original Message----- >From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-
bounces@icann.org]
>On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx >Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM >To: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at >Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org >Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >Hi Wilfried: > >I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark
owners,
>but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect
to,
>e.g., copyright. > >Kim > >On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > > >>Hi Kim, Team! >> >>Kim G. von Arx wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Emily et al: >>> >>> >>> >>>>- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of
the
>Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we >invite someone from the staff to cover this point? > >>> >>>I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation >> >>+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic > >would > >>already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for
the
>Sunday > >>get-together. >> >>Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or > >documents. > >>>I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have > >started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to
face
>meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke >proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as >provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I
would
>like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder >constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect
to
>format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to
face
>meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the >presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive
work
for
>the remaining 1.5 days. > >>"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? >> >> >>>>Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>>> >>>>I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to
propose
>the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during
our
>mandate > >>>>- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >>> >>> >>>I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize
our
>face to face time as much as possible. > >>OK for me. >> >> >>>>- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>>> - the Board >>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >>>> >>>>I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with
the
>relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask
them
>what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to
our
>task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward
by
>different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those
meetings
>and help lead the discussions? > >>> >>>agreed >>> >>> >>>>Our next call >>>>I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>>> >>>>- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global
perspective
>>>>- identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >>> >>> >>>agreed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>----------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
>---- > >>Wilfried > > >_______________________________________________ >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-whois
* Kim G. von Arx wrote:
In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views.
So may I now start with setting up a questionare?
Regarding current ICANN Policy, Denise Michel should be able to help us out on that. I'd prefer a 2-day format as well and could support even longer sessions, especially if we are doing outreach or are getting input from the region. I'm in favor of asking stakeholders for their opinions on a number of subjects, including what we should work on; provided that we make it clear our first order of business is to complete the review per the Affirmation of Commitments. I realize that others would prefer to combine a broader analysis and review with a narrower, perhaps stricter interpretation of the AoC. There are valid concerns and reasons to do this. I'm supportive of those and would genuinely like to address the broader issues related to WHOIS Policy. I suspect, or perhaps it's a hypothesis, that we could reach consensus quickly and maybe even easily on the narrower analysis and review. I also think we could quickly reach consensus on the broader issues that are at play in WHOIS Policy. Where we might have difficulty, is in reaching consensus on how best to deal with any issues we uncover in either the narrow or broad analysis. If my hypothesis is correct, we will have had the opportunity to work together, reach consensus, and establish working relationships and rapport that we can rely on as we delve into issues that might be more contentious. Having the prior consensus-building experience will engender trust in each other and could help us make very valuable recommendations regarding an important issue. From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:01 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps Hi Emily et al: - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days. Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible. - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? agreed Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on: - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. agreed.
participants (6)
-
Dr. Sarmad Hussain -
Emily Taylor -
Kim G. von Arx -
Lutz Donnerhacke -
Smith, Bill -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet