Re: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED
Dang! This document is supposed to contain all of our recommendations. Thanks Lynn, good catch. I was intending to put it in and forgot AGAIN. Trying not to introduce additional language at this late stage Lynn. Did we already agree a consumer awareness programme recommendation? I can't find it, but happy to be corrected. I will re-issue this document with Lutz's draft - Lutz, OK if I tweak some of the language? On 30 November 2011 14:51, <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:
I made a quick read Emily and have no objections to these recommendations.
Are these just the recommendations with some remaining contention amongst the team members?
I was looking for Lutz's recommendation on a centralized interface for ease of fnding WHOIS data. Also want to make sure we recommend that ICANN develop and execute an ongoing consumer awareness program. I will be happy to draft that recommendation. Lynn
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:14 am To: rt4-whois@icann.org
Hi all
Following the queries on the list overnight, I have tried as best I can to piece together the language of the recommendations.The documents I checked against were https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclus... Recommendations discussed in Dakar), and this https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recomm... first consolidated draft of what was agreed in Dakar, and MdR).
However, like others, I have found it confusing to understand from the multiple drafts posted on the private WIKI, but I do think the draft of 21 November (second link above) is a fair representation of what we as a team negotiated and agreed.
I have gone back to text that we agreed in MdR and Dakar, and tried only to add text in the following circumstances:
- Where the sense was unclear, or we were tasking the wrong people - Where the text has evolved through consent of the team since Dakar (IDNs and Proxies) - Where the text has come from another, stable source (compliance recommendation on WDRP). There, as the author and having received a comment from James on the correct parties to task, I have cleaned up the language.
I hope I have done a fair job on this.
I have noted one place (privacy recs.) where there is contested language. My proposal - sorry James - is that we revert to our agreed text from Dakar on this.
If I have made mistakes on the source language, I apologise, this is not intentional and I am happy to be corrected.
Please carefully consider these recommendations. They can be improved, the language could be better, clearer, but they are what we agreed. Please let me have any show stoppers by 1600 UTC.
Kind regards
Emily
--
* *
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu
*www.etlaw.co.uk*
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
Hi Emily I have reviewed the recommendations document and I think once Lutz' recommendation is included we have captures everything. On the proxy proposal James had suggested less detail on what the best practices would be. I can agree with that. I am currently on my way into the office and can send proposed language at that time. I have not reviewed the full report after the revisions last night and would like the opportunity to do so What is the current cut off time? Susan Sent from my iPhone On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:54 AM, "Emily Taylor" <emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> wrote: Dang! This document is supposed to contain all of our recommendations. Thanks Lynn, good catch. I was intending to put it in and forgot AGAIN. Trying not to introduce additional language at this late stage Lynn. Did we already agree a consumer awareness programme recommendation? I can't find it, but happy to be corrected. I will re-issue this document with Lutz's draft - Lutz, OK if I tweak some of the language? On 30 November 2011 14:51, <<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> wrote: I made a quick read Emily and have no objections to these recommendations. Are these just the recommendations with some remaining contention amongst the team members? I was looking for Lutz's recommendation on a centralized interface for ease of fnding WHOIS data. Also want to make sure we recommend that ICANN develop and execute an ongoing consumer awareness program. I will be happy to draft that recommendation. Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED From: Emily Taylor <<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:14 am To: <mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Hi all Following the queries on the list overnight, I have tried as best I can to piece together the language of the recommendations.The documents I checked against were <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclus...> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclus... (Draft Recommendations discussed in Dakar), and this <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recomm...> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recomm... (The first consolidated draft of what was agreed in Dakar, and MdR). However, like others, I have found it confusing to understand from the multiple drafts posted on the private WIKI, but I do think the draft of 21 November (second link above) is a fair representation of what we as a team negotiated and agreed. I have gone back to text that we agreed in MdR and Dakar, and tried only to add text in the following circumstances: - Where the sense was unclear, or we were tasking the wrong people - Where the text has evolved through consent of the team since Dakar (IDNs and Proxies) - Where the text has come from another, stable source (compliance recommendation on WDRP). There, as the author and having received a comment from James on the correct parties to task, I have cleaned up the language. I hope I have done a fair job on this. I have noted one place (privacy recs.) where there is contested language. My proposal - sorry James - is that we revert to our agreed text from Dakar on this. If I have made mistakes on the source language, I apologise, this is not intentional and I am happy to be corrected. Please carefully consider these recommendations. They can be improved, the language could be better, clearer, but they are what we agreed. Please let me have any show stoppers by 1600 UTC. Kind regards Emily -- [X] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811<tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811> • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322<tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322> <mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu> <http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list <mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org>Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 <mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu> <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
One other comment on the recs, and our "suggestion" that ICANN appoint one "throat to choke" on WHOIS. I'm *very* supportive of that, but have significant concerns with the suggestion that Compliance own this. I think Compliance does a fine job, at what they do. However, they are neither charged with nor staffed to fill this role. This isn't intended as a criticism of Compliance, or the individuals. I think they are doing exactly what they are charged with and do a remarkable job given their staffing levels and makeup. Anointing Compliance as WHOIS Czar won't address the underlying issue; that ICANN does not treat WHOIS as an essential piece of its, and the Internet's, business. To address that issue requires a broader approach than simply enhanced compliance. The specific issues are varied and include technical (protocol, encoding), policy, operations, among other disciplines. I'm concerned that the Board could deal with this by adding one staff member, perhaps another lawyer, to the Compliance team and indicate that it had addressed the issue. I seriously doubt that it would. (I apologize for not bring this up earlier. I knew I had another concern but couldn't remember it when I drafted my earlier note. Too early, too old.) On Nov 30, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: Hi Emily I have reviewed the recommendations document and I think once Lutz' recommendation is included we have captures everything. On the proxy proposal James had suggested less detail on what the best practices would be. I can agree with that. I am currently on my way into the office and can send proposed language at that time. I have not reviewed the full report after the revisions last night and would like the opportunity to do so What is the current cut off time? Susan Sent from my iPhone On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:54 AM, "Emily Taylor" <emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> wrote: Dang! This document is supposed to contain all of our recommendations. Thanks Lynn, good catch. I was intending to put it in and forgot AGAIN. Trying not to introduce additional language at this late stage Lynn. Did we already agree a consumer awareness programme recommendation? I can't find it, but happy to be corrected. I will re-issue this document with Lutz's draft - Lutz, OK if I tweak some of the language? On 30 November 2011 14:51, <<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> wrote: I made a quick read Emily and have no objections to these recommendations. Are these just the recommendations with some remaining contention amongst the team members? I was looking for Lutz's recommendation on a centralized interface for ease of fnding WHOIS data. Also want to make sure we recommend that ICANN develop and execute an ongoing consumer awareness program. I will be happy to draft that recommendation. Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED From: Emily Taylor <<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:14 am To: <mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Hi all Following the queries on the list overnight, I have tried as best I can to piece together the language of the recommendations.The documents I checked against were <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclus...> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclus... (Draft Recommendations discussed in Dakar), and this <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recomm...> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recomm... (The first consolidated draft of what was agreed in Dakar, and MdR). However, like others, I have found it confusing to understand from the multiple drafts posted on the private WIKI, but I do think the draft of 21 November (second link above) is a fair representation of what we as a team negotiated and agreed. I have gone back to text that we agreed in MdR and Dakar, and tried only to add text in the following circumstances: - Where the sense was unclear, or we were tasking the wrong people - Where the text has evolved through consent of the team since Dakar (IDNs and Proxies) - Where the text has come from another, stable source (compliance recommendation on WDRP). There, as the author and having received a comment from James on the correct parties to task, I have cleaned up the language. I hope I have done a fair job on this. I have noted one place (privacy recs.) where there is contested language. My proposal - sorry James - is that we revert to our agreed text from Dakar on this. If I have made mistakes on the source language, I apologise, this is not intentional and I am happy to be corrected. Please carefully consider these recommendations. They can be improved, the language could be better, clearer, but they are what we agreed. Please let me have any show stoppers by 1600 UTC. Kind regards Emily -- [x-msg://884/] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811<tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811> • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322<tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322> <mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu> <http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk/> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list <mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org>Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 <mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu> <http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk/> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713. _______________________________________________ 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
Many thanks Susan. If you could get the new language out to the list by the top of the hour (ie 40 minutes or so) that would be great. Please use this version of the document. On 30 November 2011 15:35, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> wrote:
Hi Emily
I have reviewed the recommendations document and I think once Lutz' recommendation is included we have captures everything. On the proxy proposal James had suggested less detail on what the best practices would be. I can agree with that.
I am currently on my way into the office and can send proposed language at that time.
I have not reviewed the full report after the revisions last night and would like the opportunity to do so
What is the current cut off time?
Susan
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:54 AM, "Emily Taylor" <emily@emilytaylor.eu> wrote:
Dang!
This document is supposed to contain all of our recommendations.
Thanks Lynn, good catch. I was intending to put it in and forgot AGAIN.
Trying not to introduce additional language at this late stage Lynn. Did we already agree a consumer awareness programme recommendation? I can't find it, but happy to be corrected.
I will re-issue this document with Lutz's draft - Lutz, OK if I tweak some of the language?
On 30 November 2011 14:51, < <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:
I made a quick read Emily and have no objections to these recommendations.
Are these just the recommendations with some remaining contention amongst the team members?
I was looking for Lutz's recommendation on a centralized interface for ease of fnding WHOIS data. Also want to make sure we recommend that ICANN develop and execute an ongoing consumer awareness program. I will be happy to draft that recommendation. Lynn
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED From: Emily Taylor < <emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily@emilytaylor.eu> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:14 am To: <rt4-whois@icann.org>rt4-whois@icann.org
Hi all
Following the queries on the list overnight, I have tried as best I can to piece together the language of the recommendations.The documents I checked against were <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclus...> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclus... Recommendations discussed in Dakar), and this <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recomm...> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recomm... first consolidated draft of what was agreed in Dakar, and MdR).
However, like others, I have found it confusing to understand from the multiple drafts posted on the private WIKI, but I do think the draft of 21 November (second link above) is a fair representation of what we as a team negotiated and agreed.
I have gone back to text that we agreed in MdR and Dakar, and tried only to add text in the following circumstances:
- Where the sense was unclear, or we were tasking the wrong people - Where the text has evolved through consent of the team since Dakar (IDNs and Proxies) - Where the text has come from another, stable source (compliance recommendation on WDRP). There, as the author and having received a comment from James on the correct parties to task, I have cleaned up the language.
I hope I have done a fair job on this.
I have noted one place (privacy recs.) where there is contested language. My proposal - sorry James - is that we revert to our agreed text from Dakar on this.
If I have made mistakes on the source language, I apologise, this is not intentional and I am happy to be corrected.
Please carefully consider these recommendations. They can be improved, the language could be better, clearer, but they are what we agreed. Please let me have any show stoppers by 1600 UTC.
Kind regards
Emily
--
* *
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 <emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily@emilytaylor.eu
* <http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>www.etlaw.co.uk*
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list <Rt4-whois@icann.org>Rt4-whois@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
--
* *
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 <emily@emilytaylor.eu>emily@emilytaylor.eu
* <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>www.etlaw.co.uk*
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
participants (4)
-
Emily Taylor -
lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com -
Smith, Bill -
Susan Kawaguchi