Comments on the draft discussion paper [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hello all, Unfortunately I won't be able to make tonight's call on the discussion paper, and have instead made some comments and suggestions in the attached (in revision mode, and with comment boxes) which I hope will be helpful. I think the paper is starting to look very good, and one that will hopefully draw out some useful community feedback. As you'll see, I've noted a couple of questions that I think we'd already agreed to delete, and also proposed an additional sub-component to one question which I'd be very interested to get community feedback on. I've also commented on the proposed 'costs' section of the paper, which I have some questions and concerns about. I look forward to reviewing the version that comes out of tonight's call asap after its available. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2011 6:22 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review - updated draft following today's call Dear Review Team Members, Today's call, chaired by Kathy and attended by Peter, Susan, Bill, Kim and Omar, focused on agenda item 1, advancing the issues paper. Edits were made up to the end of the second question box on page 5, as marked in the attached version. The list of consensus policies was moved above the first question box and the team decided to include hyperlinks to main documents. PLEASE NOTE: When adding the hyperlinks, I noted that items 3 and 4 in the consensus policy list on page 4 seem to relate to the same instrument, notably the WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy, so I reflected that in the drafting, marked by red. This is to be confirmed, though! Also, please correct (and bear with me...) if I missed or misunderstood any of the decided edits. Very best regards Olof ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Peter, On your first comment in the doc, regarding deletion of questions 5 and 6, I checked with my manually edited copy from last call and you are SO right, thanks for catching that omission! Moreover, according to my notes, also questions 3 and 4 were to be deleted, but it just didn't happen in the version I sent out (mea culpa, new glasses needed perhaps?). To be rectified in the next version after today's call. Very best regards Olof From: Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:58 AM To: rt4-whois@icann.org; Emily Taylor Cc: Olof Nordling; Alice Jansen Subject: Comments on the draft discussion paper [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hello all, Unfortunately I won't be able to make tonight's call on the discussion paper, and have instead made some comments and suggestions in the attached (in revision mode, and with comment boxes) which I hope will be helpful. I think the paper is starting to look very good, and one that will hopefully draw out some useful community feedback. As you'll see, I've noted a couple of questions that I think we'd already agreed to delete, and also proposed an additional sub-component to one question which I'd be very interested to get community feedback on. I've also commented on the proposed 'costs' section of the paper, which I have some questions and concerns about. I look forward to reviewing the version that comes out of tonight's call asap after its available. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2011 6:22 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review - updated draft following today's call Dear Review Team Members, Today's call, chaired by Kathy and attended by Peter, Susan, Bill, Kim and Omar, focused on agenda item 1, advancing the issues paper. Edits were made up to the end of the second question box on page 5, as marked in the attached version. The list of consensus policies was moved above the first question box and the team decided to include hyperlinks to main documents. PLEASE NOTE: When adding the hyperlinks, I noted that items 3 and 4 in the consensus policy list on page 4 seem to relate to the same instrument, notably the WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy, so I reflected that in the drafting, marked by red. This is to be confirmed, though! Also, please correct (and bear with me...) if I missed or misunderstood any of the decided edits. Very best regards Olof ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Peter and All, Peter, tx for your edits and corrections. I agree that the paper is looking great -- and now it is time to finish it and get it out for public comment (this week is the deadline!). That gives the Community a chance to see our issues and questions, and an opportunity to prepare notes for our discussions in Singapore (as well as prepare written comments for afterwards). ** Two quick notes: (1) I asked Liz Gasster to review the "Clarity of existing policy" section, and she found I/we had left out something -- a consensus procedure called " 'Handling WHOIS conflicts with Privacy Law' (effective January 2008) which details how ICANN will respond to a situation where a registrar or registry indicates it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from complying with the provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via WHOIS. The procedure is for use by ICANN staff and did not change the obligations of registries, registrars or third parties when approved by the GNSO and adopted by the Board." I have included the text above at the end of the Clarity of existing policy. For those who passed it, it was seen as a small step for ICANN since it did not allow registries and registrars to pro-actively bring themselves into compliance with laws, but only to wait until they are called out as being in violation. So it was seen as a first step, but a small step. Nonetheless, Liz is right in advising that we might include it -- so I have done so subject to your approval -- to the changes already circulated by Peter on the current draft. (2) Alice and Olof -- will it be possible to insert links to all of the policies and procedures in the final version so people can easily find them?? Tx you! Best, Kathy Hello all,
Unfortunately I won't be able to make tonight's call on the discussion paper, and have instead made some comments and suggestions in the attached (in revision mode, and with comment boxes) which I hope will be helpful.
I think the paper is starting to look very good, and one that will hopefully draw out some useful community feedback.
As you'll see, I've noted a couple of questions that I think we'd already agreed to delete, and also proposed an additional sub-component to one question which I'd be very interested to get community feedback on. I've also commented on the proposed 'costs' section of the paper, which I have some questions and concerns about.
I look forward to reviewing the version that comes out of tonight's call asap after its available.
Cheers,
Peter
*From:*rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olof Nordling *Sent:* Wednesday, 25 May 2011 6:22 PM *To:* rt4-whois@icann.org *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review - updated draft following today's call
Dear Review Team Members,
Today's call, chaired by Kathy and attended by Peter, Susan, Bill, Kim and Omar, focused on agenda item 1, advancing the issues paper. Edits were made up to the end of the second question box on page 5, as marked in the attached version. The list of consensus policies was moved above the first question box and the team decided to include hyperlinks to main documents.
PLEASE NOTE: When adding the hyperlinks, I noted that items 3 and 4 in the consensus policy list on page 4 seem to relate to the same instrument, notably the WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy, so I reflected that in the drafting, marked by red. This is to be confirmed, though!
Also, please correct (and bear with me...) if I missed or misunderstood any of the decided edits.
Very best regards
Olof
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Dear Kathy, Thanks for this important input on "applicable laws". I agree it's a small step - on a still obscure/undone path. Omar 2011/6/1 Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>:
** Two quick notes: (1) I asked Liz Gasster to review the "Clarity of existing policy" section, and she found I/we had left out something -- a consensus procedure called " 'Handling WHOIS conflicts with Privacy Law' (effective January 2008) which details how ICANN will respond to a situation where a registrar or registry indicates it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from complying with the provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via WHOIS. The procedure is for use by ICANN staff and did not change the obligations of registries, registrars or third parties when approved by the GNSO and adopted by the Board."
I have included the text above at the end of the Clarity of existing policy. For those who passed it, it was seen as a small step for ICANN since it did not allow registries and registrars to pro-actively bring themselves into compliance with laws, but only to wait until they are called out as being in violation. So it was seen as a first step, but a small step.
Nonetheless, Liz is right in advising that we might include it -- so I have done so subject to your approval -- to the changes already circulated by Peter on the current draft.
(2) Alice and Olof -- will it be possible to insert links to all of the policies and procedures in the final version so people can easily find them?? Tx you! Best, Kathy
Hello all,
Unfortunately I won’t be able to make tonight’s call on the discussion paper, and have instead made some comments and suggestions in the attached (in revision mode, and with comment boxes) which I hope will be helpful.
I think the paper is starting to look very good, and one that will hopefully draw out some useful community feedback.
As you’ll see, I’ve noted a couple of questions that I think we’d already agreed to delete, and also proposed an additional sub-component to one question which I’d be very interested to get community feedback on. I’ve also commented on the proposed ‘costs’ section of the paper, which I have some questions and concerns about.
I look forward to reviewing the version that comes out of tonight’s call asap after its available.
Cheers,
Peter
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2011 6:22 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review - updated draft following today's call
Dear Review Team Members,
Today’s call, chaired by Kathy and attended by Peter, Susan, Bill, Kim and Omar, focused on agenda item 1, advancing the issues paper. Edits were made up to the end of the second question box on page 5, as marked in the attached version. The list of consensus policies was moved above the first question box and the team decided to include hyperlinks to main documents.
PLEASE NOTE: When adding the hyperlinks, I noted that items 3 and 4 in the consensus policy list on page 4 seem to relate to the same instrument, notably the WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy, so I reflected that in the drafting, marked by red. This is to be confirmed, though!
Also, please correct (and bear with me…) if I missed or misunderstood any of the decided edits.
Very best regards
Olof
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Omar and thanks Kathy for your hard work. Kim __________________________________ kim@vonarx.ca +1 (613) 286-4445 "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..." On 1 Jun 2011, at 15:13, Omar Kaminski wrote:
Dear Kathy,
Thanks for this important input on "applicable laws". I agree it's a small step - on a still obscure/undone path.
Omar
2011/6/1 Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>:
** Two quick notes: (1) I asked Liz Gasster to review the "Clarity of existing policy" section, and she found I/we had left out something -- a consensus procedure called " 'Handling WHOIS conflicts with Privacy Law' (effective January 2008) which details how ICANN will respond to a situation where a registrar or registry indicates it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from complying with the provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via WHOIS. The procedure is for use by ICANN staff and did not change the obligations of registries, registrars or third parties when approved by the GNSO and adopted by the Board."
I have included the text above at the end of the Clarity of existing policy. For those who passed it, it was seen as a small step for ICANN since it did not allow registries and registrars to pro-actively bring themselves into compliance with laws, but only to wait until they are called out as being in violation. So it was seen as a first step, but a small step.
Nonetheless, Liz is right in advising that we might include it -- so I have done so subject to your approval -- to the changes already circulated by Peter on the current draft.
(2) Alice and Olof -- will it be possible to insert links to all of the policies and procedures in the final version so people can easily find them?? Tx you! Best, Kathy
Hello all,
Unfortunately I won’t be able to make tonight’s call on the discussion paper, and have instead made some comments and suggestions in the attached (in revision mode, and with comment boxes) which I hope will be helpful.
I think the paper is starting to look very good, and one that will hopefully draw out some useful community feedback.
As you’ll see, I’ve noted a couple of questions that I think we’d already agreed to delete, and also proposed an additional sub-component to one question which I’d be very interested to get community feedback on. I’ve also commented on the proposed ‘costs’ section of the paper, which I have some questions and concerns about.
I look forward to reviewing the version that comes out of tonight’s call asap after its available.
Cheers,
Peter
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2011 6:22 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review - updated draft following today's call
Dear Review Team Members,
Today’s call, chaired by Kathy and attended by Peter, Susan, Bill, Kim and Omar, focused on agenda item 1, advancing the issues paper. Edits were made up to the end of the second question box on page 5, as marked in the attached version. The list of consensus policies was moved above the first question box and the team decided to include hyperlinks to main documents.
PLEASE NOTE: When adding the hyperlinks, I noted that items 3 and 4 in the consensus policy list on page 4 seem to relate to the same instrument, notably the WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy, so I reflected that in the drafting, marked by red. This is to be confirmed, though!
Also, please correct (and bear with me…) if I missed or misunderstood any of the decided edits.
Very best regards
Olof
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
... and what about consumer protection laws, e.g. France and Germany? I am *very* sympathetic to privacy concerns. At the same time, we must consider consumer protection. Laws in this space are equally "applicable". On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:14 AM, "Omar Kaminski" <omar@kaminski.adv.br> wrote:
Dear Kathy,
Thanks for this important input on "applicable laws". I agree it's a small step - on a still obscure/undone path.
Omar
2011/6/1 Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>:
** Two quick notes: (1) I asked Liz Gasster to review the "Clarity of existing policy" section, and she found I/we had left out something -- a consensus procedure called " 'Handling WHOIS conflicts with Privacy Law' (effective January 2008) which details how ICANN will respond to a situation where a registrar or registry indicates it is legally prevented by local/national privacy laws or regulations from complying with the provisions of its ICANN contract regarding the collection, display and distribution of personal data via WHOIS. The procedure is for use by ICANN staff and did not change the obligations of registries, registrars or third parties when approved by the GNSO and adopted by the Board."
I have included the text above at the end of the Clarity of existing policy. For those who passed it, it was seen as a small step for ICANN since it did not allow registries and registrars to pro-actively bring themselves into compliance with laws, but only to wait until they are called out as being in violation. So it was seen as a first step, but a small step.
Nonetheless, Liz is right in advising that we might include it -- so I have done so subject to your approval -- to the changes already circulated by Peter on the current draft.
(2) Alice and Olof -- will it be possible to insert links to all of the policies and procedures in the final version so people can easily find them?? Tx you! Best, Kathy
Hello all,
Unfortunately I won’t be able to make tonight’s call on the discussion paper, and have instead made some comments and suggestions in the attached (in revision mode, and with comment boxes) which I hope will be helpful.
I think the paper is starting to look very good, and one that will hopefully draw out some useful community feedback.
As you’ll see, I’ve noted a couple of questions that I think we’d already agreed to delete, and also proposed an additional sub-component to one question which I’d be very interested to get community feedback on. I’ve also commented on the proposed ‘costs’ section of the paper, which I have some questions and concerns about.
I look forward to reviewing the version that comes out of tonight’s call asap after its available.
Cheers,
Peter
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2011 6:22 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review - updated draft following today's call
Dear Review Team Members,
Today’s call, chaired by Kathy and attended by Peter, Susan, Bill, Kim and Omar, focused on agenda item 1, advancing the issues paper. Edits were made up to the end of the second question box on page 5, as marked in the attached version. The list of consensus policies was moved above the first question box and the team decided to include hyperlinks to main documents.
PLEASE NOTE: When adding the hyperlinks, I noted that items 3 and 4 in the consensus policy list on page 4 seem to relate to the same instrument, notably the WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy, so I reflected that in the drafting, marked by red. This is to be confirmed, though!
Also, please correct (and bear with me…) if I missed or misunderstood any of the decided edits.
Very best regards
Olof
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
One final note to all - we finished last week's two hour session on the question box, questions 9-13. After the review of the few edits and changes to prior sections, I would recommend that we start at these questions, review the following section, "Cost Impact & Considerations," and then I think we are done! Best, Kathy Attachment: Discussion paper, same version as my last email (Peter/Kathy edits) Hello all,
Unfortunately I won't be able to make tonight's call on the discussion paper, and have instead made some comments and suggestions in the attached (in revision mode, and with comment boxes) which I hope will be helpful.
I think the paper is starting to look very good, and one that will hopefully draw out some useful community feedback.
As you'll see, I've noted a couple of questions that I think we'd already agreed to delete, and also proposed an additional sub-component to one question which I'd be very interested to get community feedback on. I've also commented on the proposed 'costs' section of the paper, which I have some questions and concerns about.
I look forward to reviewing the version that comes out of tonight's call asap after its available.
Cheers,
Peter
*From:*rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olof Nordling *Sent:* Wednesday, 25 May 2011 6:22 PM *To:* rt4-whois@icann.org *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review - updated draft following today's call
Dear Review Team Members,
Today's call, chaired by Kathy and attended by Peter, Susan, Bill, Kim and Omar, focused on agenda item 1, advancing the issues paper. Edits were made up to the end of the second question box on page 5, as marked in the attached version. The list of consensus policies was moved above the first question box and the team decided to include hyperlinks to main documents.
PLEASE NOTE: When adding the hyperlinks, I noted that items 3 and 4 in the consensus policy list on page 4 seem to relate to the same instrument, notably the WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy, so I reflected that in the drafting, marked by red. This is to be confirmed, though!
Also, please correct (and bear with me...) if I missed or misunderstood any of the decided edits.
Very best regards
Olof
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
participants (6)
-
Kathy Kleiman -
Kim G. von Arx -
Nettlefold, Peter -
Olof Nordling -
Omar Kaminski -
Smith, Bill