Dear colleagues, I do apologize for having missed today's call. It was during my travel outside Moscow. Rgds, Michael From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:08 AM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Note Pod Content from Call - 28 March Dear Review Team Members, Please find enclosed the pod content of your conference call held on 28 March. Thanks, Kind regards Alice WHOIS Policy Review Team Conference call - 21:00 UTC AGENDA * Roll-call & apologies * Costa Rica: preliminary report & discussion document https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report * Action items list: Members to report progress made https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+Items+-+Spring+2012 * Comments: review comments received to date - (document encapsulating comments available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreviewprivate/Final+Report) * Next steps * A.O.B PARTICIPANTS Susan Kawaguchi, Lynn Goodendorf, Emily Taylor, James Bladel, Kathy Kleiman, Seth Reiss, Peter Nettlefold, Omar Kaminski, Lutz Donnerhacke, Bill Smith ICANN STAFF Alice Jansen APOLOGIES Olof Nordling, Denise Michel NOTES 1. Prel Rep adopted Document on recommendations - resource for the Team as continue to work. 2. Work in progress - Data Accuracy recs. (Susan) Discussion on Proxy and privacy recommendations - refer to Seth's email. Accreditation - in progress (ET) Try and take on board guidance received in public comments - we can always fall back on agreed language if unable to take this forward. Revisit strategic priority rec. on list - submit comments and edits by next week Rec. 17 - discussion by next week IDN recs. work in progress Review chapters - date too optimistic - by Friday, 13 April 3. (ET) analyzed comments. Rec 1 - want to make sure talking about documentation not a PDF Rec 2 - appropriate processes Rec 3 - may comments supportive. Staff queries - not talking about compliance but WHOIS as a whole. Interesting suggestion from UK Rec 5 - unreachable --> undeliverable. Need specific sample best cost-effective way - Not necessarily NORC study. Not talking about 100% but improving records that are unreachable. Should limit language (construed PDP etc). Should refer to ongoing dialogue about verification - legacy problem. Contactability is more important than accuracy (NCSG). Qualify verification. Note the discussions are going on and that negotiations are ongoing. Make distinction between legacy prpblem and verification. Rec. 8 Great support. Define serious breaches - is that our role? RAA 2009 already allows for graduated sanctions - something we missed. -- to continue discussion on list Rec 9: Staff suggests that might need to have a PDP - which one? Unclear --> Denise European commission refers to a number of documents UK govt suggesting a reform Team. 4. Next steps - Timeframe and deep developped implementation plan and go back to contributors. Should we send that as a recommendation? Susan to draft some language + Denise's update on next call. Take AoC into consideration when drafting. Lynn to help. Need to talk to Staff again --> a recorded call. Rec 3 - Emily's language - To look into text again (pieces missing) Need to respond to Staff's comments for Community to see. (PN) Proposal to strengthen recommendations on compliance. Happy with current level but would not be opposed to change. Emily, Bill and Peter to work on language - experss justification for what proposing.