Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting
Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call. Comments and feedback are more than welcome. The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting Thank you, Very best regards Alice From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk>> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 To: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily
Dear RT Members and friends, My dad and mom are here for 9 days, my dad had a surgery scheduled for yesterday and it was delayed. Both are old-aged (77) and I need to assist them in many things. So I ask you my apologies for staying away for a while. Neverthless, I'll do my best to participate on the call tomorroy. Regards from .br, Omar 2011/4/5 Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>
Dear Review Team Members,
Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call.
Comments and feedback are more than welcome.
The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting
Thank you,
Very best regards
Alice
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 To: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting
Dear all
I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list.
Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call.
I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward.
I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment.
Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate?
So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline.
Kind regards
Emily
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
I'll send my regrets for this meeting. I'm in Geneva and have meetings starting at 07:30 Thu & Fri. If I've done the timezone math correctly, this call will start at 01:00 local time leaving little time for sleep. On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote: Dear RT Members and friends, My dad and mom are here for 9 days, my dad had a surgery scheduled for yesterday and it was delayed. Both are old-aged (77) and I need to assist them in many things. So I ask you my apologies for staying away for a while. Neverthless, I'll do my best to participate on the call tomorroy. Regards from .br, Omar 2011/4/5 Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call. Comments and feedback are more than welcome. The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting Thank you, Very best regards Alice From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk>> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 To: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois <ATT00001..txt>
All, I join Bill and Omar in sending my regrets for this meeting. My son's Bar Mitzvah is on Saturday, and we are in the throes of final preparation. Looking forward to hearing about the meeting, and best to everyone, Kathy -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 5:46 AM To: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting I'll send my regrets for this meeting. I'm in Geneva and have meetings starting at 07:30 Thu & Fri. If I've done the timezone math correctly, this call will start at 01:00 local time leaving little time for sleep. On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote: Dear RT Members and friends, My dad and mom are here for 9 days, my dad had a surgery scheduled for yesterday and it was delayed. Both are old-aged (77) and I need to assist them in many things. So I ask you my apologies for staying away for a while. Neverthless, I'll do my best to participate on the call tomorroy. Regards from .br, Omar 2011/4/5 Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call. Comments and feedback are more than welcome. The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting Thank you, Very best regards Alice From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk>> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 To: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois <ATT00001..txt> _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -- Converted from text/plain format --> Hi All, I have spoken to Emily and I won't be there either - I have other on call responsibilities which make this too difficult. I am willing to take up and progress any taskings coming from the meeting. I would like to suggest that when we meet in Singapore that we strike out 2 days for another face to face on Whois, I found the meeting in London very useful and think it would be good to take stock again and plan for our last few months of the project. I hope you are all well and look forward to seeing you all again soon. Kathy - I hope the Bar Mitzvah goes well, big day. Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: 06 April 2011 12:57 To: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting All, I join Bill and Omar in sending my regrets for this meeting. My son's Bar Mitzvah is on Saturday, and we are in the throes of final preparation. Looking forward to hearing about the meeting, and best to everyone, Kathy -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 5:46 AM To: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting I'll send my regrets for this meeting. I'm in Geneva and have meetings starting at 07:30 Thu & Fri. If I've done the timezone math correctly, this call will start at 01:00 local time leaving little time for sleep. On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote: Dear RT Members and friends, My dad and mom are here for 9 days, my dad had a surgery scheduled for yesterday and it was delayed. Both are old-aged (77) and I need to assist them in many things. So I ask you my apologies for staying away for a while. Neverthless, I'll do my best to participate on the call tomorroy. Regards from .br, Omar 2011/4/5 Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Dear Review Team Members, Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call. Comments and feedback are more than welcome. The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting Thank you, Very best regards Alice From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk>> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 To: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois <ATT00001..txt> _______________________________________________ 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 All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Mazel tov! On Apr 6, 2011, at 4:56 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
All, I join Bill and Omar in sending my regrets for this meeting. My son's Bar Mitzvah is on Saturday, and we are in the throes of final preparation. Looking forward to hearing about the meeting, and best to everyone, Kathy
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 5:46 AM To: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] SANFRANCISCO NOTES FOR APPROVAL Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting
I'll send my regrets for this meeting. I'm in Geneva and have meetings starting at 07:30 Thu & Fri. If I've done the timezone math correctly, this call will start at 01:00 local time leaving little time for sleep.
On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote:
Dear RT Members and friends,
My dad and mom are here for 9 days, my dad had a surgery scheduled for yesterday and it was delayed. Both are old-aged (77) and I need to assist them in many things.
So I ask you my apologies for staying away for a while. Neverthless, I'll do my best to participate on the call tomorroy.
Regards from .br,
Omar
2011/4/5 Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Dear Review Team Members,
Following up on Emily's email, please find attached the San Francisco meeting notes that will be discussed tomorrow during the call.
Comments and feedback are more than welcome.
The report and San Francisco material are also available on the wiki for your convenience: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting
Thank you,
Very best regards
Alice
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk>> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:50:28 -0700 To: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting
Dear all
I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list.
Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call.
I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward.
I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment.
Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate?
So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline.
Kind regards
Emily
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
<ATT00001..txt>
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Hi All, In response to Emily's excellent agenda and outline, let me share that a third task, a narrow one, that I think should be added to the list. Per Emily's outline, Section 1: "We need to undertake two tasks now to complete this section: 1. identify "legitimate needs of law enforcement" 2. identify "what factors promote consumer trust in the context of WHOIS" I agree and add a third: 3. Identify "applicable laws." As presented at our Wednesday Public Forum session by a man at the microphone, and as defined in our applicable laws definition, there is a narrow set of laws that fall squarely within those the AoC is urging us to consider. As I reread ICANN Whois documents, including GAC Communiqués and GNSO reports over the years, there is as a repeating call across the years for ICANN to better know and review key data protection and privacy laws. This seems a fixed and narrow task - the type of short research project we projected to ICANN early on -- one for a professor and research assistant. It seems an appropriate compliment to the two areas above. Best, Kathy From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:50 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily
Kathy's note prompted me to reread Emily's outline. I'm uncomfortable with item 2) since it potentially limits our discussion of consumer trust to those that use (consume) WHOIS information. Both the wording of the AoC and our conversation with Larry Strickling strongly suggest that we consider "consumer trust" in very broad terms. On Apr 6, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi All, In response to Emily’s excellent agenda and outline, let me share that a third task, a narrow one, that I think should be added to the list. Per Emily’s outline, Section 1: “We need to undertake two tasks now to complete this section: 1. identify “legitimate needs of law enforcement” 2. identify “what factors promote consumer trust in the context of WHOIS” I agree and add a third: 3. Identify “applicable laws.” As presented at our Wednesday Public Forum session by a man at the microphone, and as defined in our applicable laws definition, there is a narrow set of laws that fall squarely within those the AoC is urging us to consider. As I reread ICANN Whois documents, including GAC Communiqués and GNSO reports over the years, there is as a repeating call across the years for ICANN to better know and review key data protection and privacy laws. This seems a fixed and narrow task - the type of short research project we projected to ICANN early on -- one for a professor and research assistant. It seems an appropriate compliment to the two areas above. Best, Kathy From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:50 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily <ATT00001..txt>
Hi Bill Thanks for this comment. Please can you clarify which bit you mean - is it the section headed "Consumer Trust" in the outline, or item 2 (headed, Identification and Inventory of existing Whois policy)? E On 6 Apr 2011, at 21:07, Smith, Bill wrote:
Kathy's note prompted me to reread Emily's outline. I'm uncomfortable with item 2) since it potentially limits our discussion of consumer trust to those that use (consume) WHOIS information. Both the wording of the AoC and our conversation with Larry Strickling strongly suggest that we consider "consumer trust" in very broad terms.
On Apr 6, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All, In response to Emily’s excellent agenda and outline, let me share that a third task, a narrow one, that I think should be added to the list.
Per Emily’s outline, Section 1:
“We need to undertake two tasks now to complete this section: 1. identify “legitimate needs of law enforcement” 2. identify “what factors promote consumer trust in the context of WHOIS”
I agree and add a third: 3. Identify “applicable laws.”
As presented at our Wednesday Public Forum session by a man at the microphone, and as defined in our applicable laws definition, there is a narrow set of laws that fall squarely within those the AoC is urging us to consider. As I reread ICANN Whois documents, including GAC Communiqués and GNSO reports over the years, there is as a repeating call across the years for ICANN to better know and review key data protection and privacy laws.
This seems a fixed and narrow task - the type of short research project we projected to ICANN early on -- one for a professor and research assistant. It seems an appropriate compliment to the two areas above.
Best, Kathy
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:50 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting
Dear all
I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list.
Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call.
I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward.
I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment.
Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate?
So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline.
Kind regards
Emily <ATT00001..txt>
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
It's in the Definitions, Section 1. On Apr 6, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Emily Taylor wrote: Hi Bill Thanks for this comment. Please can you clarify which bit you mean - is it the section headed "Consumer Trust" in the outline, or item 2 (headed, Identification and Inventory of existing Whois policy)? E On 6 Apr 2011, at 21:07, Smith, Bill wrote: Kathy's note prompted me to reread Emily's outline. I'm uncomfortable with item 2) since it potentially limits our discussion of consumer trust to those that use (consume) WHOIS information. Both the wording of the AoC and our conversation with Larry Strickling strongly suggest that we consider "consumer trust" in very broad terms. On Apr 6, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi All, In response to Emily’s excellent agenda and outline, let me share that a third task, a narrow one, that I think should be added to the list. Per Emily’s outline, Section 1: “We need to undertake two tasks now to complete this section: 1. identify “legitimate needs of law enforcement” 2. identify “what factors promote consumer trust in the context of WHOIS” I agree and add a third: 3. Identify “applicable laws.” As presented at our Wednesday Public Forum session by a man at the microphone, and as defined in our applicable laws definition, there is a narrow set of laws that fall squarely within those the AoC is urging us to consider. As I reread ICANN Whois documents, including GAC Communiqués and GNSO reports over the years, there is as a repeating call across the years for ICANN to better know and review key data protection and privacy laws. This seems a fixed and narrow task - the type of short research project we projected to ICANN early on -- one for a professor and research assistant. It seems an appropriate compliment to the two areas above. Best, Kathy From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:50 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting Dear all I've just returned from a few days away, and have been catching up on discussions on the list. Peter - thank you for your suggestion of an issues paper. I think this may be a good opportunity to side-step the difficulties we have discussed (and financial implications) relating to formal questionnaires, and I would be grateful if you would introduce this topic on our next call. I'm aware that the consumer trust subteam, prompted by Sarmad, has continued to work through the issues, and I'd like Sarmad to brief the RT on progress, and a proposed way forward. I would also like us to spend some quality time discussing the draft report outline which I circulated on the list on 22 March, on which there has so far been little comment. Another thing we need to do is plan our time in Singapore carefully. Peter has suggested a session with law enforcement, and we need to think through (1) whether we would find this helpful (2) how to get the most out of such a session and (3) what other stakeholders should participate? So, I attach a draft agenda for your comments, and also a copy of the draft report outline. Kind regards Emily <ATT00001..txt> [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/>
participants (6)
-
Alice Jansen -
Emily Taylor -
Kathy Kleiman -
LEMON, Sharon -
Omar Kaminski -
Smith, Bill