Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hello again all, I’ve just been looking on the review team’s public wiki, and noticed a few things that I think should be amended and discussed. I’m hesitant to put these changes into the wiki without the agreement of the review team as a whole. 1. I see that the recently adopted definition of law enforcement has been added to the wiki. Thank you to Alice for that. However, I note that the page has a table that was not discussed, or agreed on, during our call. I would suggest that this table be removed, at least until the review team has had a chance to discuss it. 2. I note that the applicable laws definition has not been updated since our call. Similarly, the definition of producers and maintainers. Can these now be updated with our agreed definitions? 3. I have just noticed that the proposed ‘consumer trust’ survey is also on the wiki. I think that if we’re going to stakeholders on this, we should carefully consider the best way to do this. My view is that that open questions give stakeholders a better opportunity to put their views across and explain their thinking. For this reason, I raised concerns with the current closed and quantitative survey. I had thought that the review team agreed to discuss this further before its release. As it would be desirable to avoid confusing stakeholders with several different surveys, I suggest that the survey on the wiki be removed until the review team has a chance to substantively discuss it. 4. I also note that there is a questionnaire hosted under the ‘outreach plan’ tab. I do recall some email traffic about this questionnaire, and I’m sorry if I missed this while I was on leave, but I do not recall the review team agreeing to it. I see that it has very detailed questions, and explicitly states that it is from ‘the review team’. While I’m not opposed to the questionnaire as such (although I do have queries about some of the questions, and note that it uses old definitions etc), I would ask whether this is/was intended to be separate from the consumer trust survey? My point about multiple surveys (in point 3 above) would seem to apply here. I am concerned about the process for posting documents on the wiki, particularly when they are posted in the name of the review team as a whole. Perhaps this could be briefly discussed in San Francisco? Kind regards, Peter From: Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Friday, 4 March 2011 9:40 AM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; Dr. Sarmad Hussain Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS' Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi all, Sorry for the slow reply, but I also think this is a good basis for our consultation. I have two brief comments: 1. I think we need an ‘or’ in the WHOIS consumer category list, rather than an ‘and’ (otherwise it would be a very high bar indeed to be considered to be a consumer). I’ve made that change below in capitals so it stands out. 2. I’m not sure what is meant by a ‘provider’. I note that this isn’t a category we’ve used in the ‘Producers and Maintainers’ definition that we’ve agreed to go forward with. So, is there an example of a ‘provider’ that is not captured under the ‘maintainer’ definition? If so, do we need to revisit our ‘Producers and Maintainers’ definition? Also, and just for the future, I think it was Kathy (?) that noted on our call that one sleeper in this formulation is the word ‘legitimately’ (and the inherent reference to its converse: ‘illegitimate’). It will be interesting to see what the public comment returns on this, as this will be one (of the many) issues we will need to focus on in some detail going forward. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:10 AM To: Dr. Sarmad Hussain Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" Thank you Dr. Sarmad! I like this last edited draft and would be happy to have this published for public comment. Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" From: "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad@cantab.net<mailto:sarmad@cantab.net>> Date: Wed, March 02, 2011 4:55 am To: "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "'RT4 WHOIS'" <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Ok, though with minor wording adjustments; see below. From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:21 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" Team: As discussed during our call, here is the proposed bifurcated definition of "consumer" for inclusion in our call for comments. It has been chopped up a bit for readability, but I did endeavor to preserve the overall meaning. I've also modified the "Feedback Requested" to be more open ended. Thoughts / feeedback? I'm off to bed now, but will check back in a few hours. Thanks-- J. _________________________________ In the global sense, "consumer" may mean: * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities, And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and Whois Service may mean: * Any consumer that acts as a Producer of WHOIS data (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service (e.g. Registrars), OR User of WHOIS data (e.g. individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.). Feedback request from community Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition. Is it too broad or too restrictive? In either case, how should it be changed. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/02/11 00:34:00 ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 and all, With reference to Point 3 below on the survey, I do agree that we should also add a few open ended questions, in addition to the pointed questions at this time. However, the specific questions should also be included. The wording could be revised (and we need to revisit each question for that purpose), based on our discussions over next few weeks, but it may still be useful to get community feedback on the survey as it stands. If we take this off line we may not be able to get this feedback. We may add text saying that “the current survey questions are tentative and will evolve based on Community feedback and further discussion by the WHOIS Review Team, before it is finally circulated to stakeholders.” This way we get the feedback and the flexibility to review it in the future. However, I am happy to go along Peter’s suggestions and take the survey offline if that seems to be the best path forward. Regards, Sarmad From: Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 9:57 AM To: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com; Dr. Sarmad Hussain Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS' Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hello again all, I’ve just been looking on the review team’s public wiki, and noticed a few things that I think should be amended and discussed. I’m hesitant to put these changes into the wiki without the agreement of the review team as a whole. 1. I see that the recently adopted definition of law enforcement has been added to the wiki. Thank you to Alice for that. However, I note that the page has a table that was not discussed, or agreed on, during our call. I would suggest that this table be removed, at least until the review team has had a chance to discuss it. 2. I note that the applicable laws definition has not been updated since our call. Similarly, the definition of producers and maintainers. Can these now be updated with our agreed definitions? 3. I have just noticed that the proposed ‘consumer trust’ survey is also on the wiki. I think that if we’re going to stakeholders on this, we should carefully consider the best way to do this. My view is that that open questions give stakeholders a better opportunity to put their views across and explain their thinking. For this reason, I raised concerns with the current closed and quantitative survey. I had thought that the review team agreed to discuss this further before its release. As it would be desirable to avoid confusing stakeholders with several different surveys, I suggest that the survey on the wiki be removed until the review team has a chance to substantively discuss it. 4. I also note that there is a questionnaire hosted under the ‘outreach plan’ tab. I do recall some email traffic about this questionnaire, and I’m sorry if I missed this while I was on leave, but I do not recall the review team agreeing to it. I see that it has very detailed questions, and explicitly states that it is from ‘the review team’. While I’m not opposed to the questionnaire as such (although I do have queries about some of the questions, and note that it uses old definitions etc), I would ask whether this is/was intended to be separate from the consumer trust survey? My point about multiple surveys (in point 3 above) would seem to apply here. I am concerned about the process for posting documents on the wiki, particularly when they are posted in the name of the review team as a whole. Perhaps this could be briefly discussed in San Francisco? Kind regards, Peter From: Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Friday, 4 March 2011 9:40 AM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; Dr. Sarmad Hussain Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS' Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hi all, Sorry for the slow reply, but I also think this is a good basis for our consultation. I have two brief comments: 1. I think we need an ‘or’ in the WHOIS consumer category list, rather than an ‘and’ (otherwise it would be a very high bar indeed to be considered to be a consumer). I’ve made that change below in capitals so it stands out. 2. I’m not sure what is meant by a ‘provider’. I note that this isn’t a category we’ve used in the ‘Producers and Maintainers’ definition that we’ve agreed to go forward with. So, is there an example of a ‘provider’ that is not captured under the ‘maintainer’ definition? If so, do we need to revisit our ‘Producers and Maintainers’ definition? Also, and just for the future, I think it was Kathy (?) that noted on our call that one sleeper in this formulation is the word ‘legitimately’ (and the inherent reference to its converse: ‘illegitimate’). It will be interesting to see what the public comment returns on this, as this will be one (of the many) issues we will need to focus on in some detail going forward. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:10 AM To: Dr. Sarmad Hussain Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" Thank you Dr. Sarmad! I like this last edited draft and would be happy to have this published for public comment. Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" From: "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" < <mailto:sarmad@cantab.net> sarmad@cantab.net> Date: Wed, March 02, 2011 4:55 am To: "'James M. Bladel'" < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com>, "'RT4 WHOIS'" < <mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> rt4-whois@icann.org> Ok, though with minor wording adjustments; see below. From: <mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [ <mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:21 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" Team: As discussed during our call, here is the proposed bifurcated definition of "consumer" for inclusion in our call for comments. It has been chopped up a bit for readability, but I did endeavor to preserve the overall meaning. I've also modified the "Feedback Requested" to be more open ended. Thoughts / feeedback? I'm off to bed now, but will check back in a few hours. Thanks-- J. _________________________________ In the global sense, "consumer" may mean: * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities, And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and Whois Service may mean: * Any consumer that acts as a Producer of WHOIS data (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service (e.g. Registrars), OR User of WHOIS data (e.g. individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.). Feedback request from community Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition. Is it too broad or too restrictive? In either case, how should it be changed. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com> www.avg.com Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/02/11 00:34:00 _____ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list <mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> Rt4-whois@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3479 - Release Date: 03/04/11 00:34:00
Dear Review Team Members, Many thanks for your comments and feedback. Rest assured that the sub teams web pages now contain the finalized definitions. Regarding the questionnaire, I have taken the liberty to add a "draft" notice to the title and incorporated Doctor Hussain's introductory sentence. The questionnaire in the outreach section has been removed for good measure pending your final decision. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have further questions or concerns. Thanks, Very best regards Alice
Hi Peter Thanks for your comments. As a general point, I agree that it's important for us to be vigilant about keeping the Wiki up to date. On our last call, we decided that the issue of consumer trust needs more work. The questionnaire could be moved to the work in progress section, and then it's clear to anyone outside the team who looks that it is not a finalised document. Kind regards Emily On 4 Mar 2011, at 04:56, Nettlefold, Peter wrote:
Hello again all,
I’ve just been looking on the review team’s public wiki, and noticed a few things that I think should be amended and discussed. I’m hesitant to put these changes into the wiki without the agreement of the review team as a whole.
1. I see that the recently adopted definition of law enforcement has been added to the wiki. Thank you to Alice for that. However, I note that the page has a table that was not discussed, or agreed on, during our call. I would suggest that this table be removed, at least until the review team has had a chance to discuss it.
2. I note that the applicable laws definition has not been updated since our call. Similarly, the definition of producers and maintainers. Can these now be updated with our agreed definitions?
3. I have just noticed that the proposed ‘consumer trust’ survey is also on the wiki. I think that if we’re going to stakeholders on this, we should carefully consider the best way to do this. My view is that that open questions give stakeholders a better opportunity to put their views across and explain their thinking. For this reason, I raised concerns with the current closed and quantitative survey. I had thought that the review team agreed to discuss this further before its release. As it would be desirable to avoid confusing stakeholders with several different surveys, I suggest that the survey on the wiki be removed until the review team has a chance to substantively discuss it.
4. I also note that there is a questionnaire hosted under the ‘outreach plan’ tab. I do recall some email traffic about this questionnaire, and I’m sorry if I missed this while I was on leave, but I do not recall the review team agreeing to it. I see that it has very detailed questions, and explicitly states that it is from ‘the review team’. While I’m not opposed to the questionnaire as such (although I do have queries about some of the questions, and note that it uses old definitions etc), I would ask whether this is/was intended to be separate from the consumer trust survey? My point about multiple surveys (in point 3 above) would seem to apply here.
I am concerned about the process for posting documents on the wiki, particularly when they are posted in the name of the review team as a whole. Perhaps this could be briefly discussed in San Francisco?
Kind regards,
Peter
From: Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Friday, 4 March 2011 9:40 AM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; Dr. Sarmad Hussain Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS' Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi all,
Sorry for the slow reply, but I also think this is a good basis for our consultation.
I have two brief comments:
1. I think we need an ‘or’ in the WHOIS consumer category list, rather than an ‘and’ (otherwise it would be a very high bar indeed to be considered to be a consumer). I’ve made that change below in capitals so it stands out.
2. I’m not sure what is meant by a ‘provider’. I note that this isn’t a category we’ve used in the ‘Producers and Maintainers’ definition that we’ve agreed to go forward with. So, is there an example of a ‘provider’ that is not captured under the ‘maintainer’ definition? If so, do we need to revisit our ‘Producers and Maintainers’ definition?
Also, and just for the future, I think it was Kathy (?) that noted on our call that one sleeper in this formulation is the word ‘legitimately’ (and the inherent reference to its converse: ‘illegitimate’). It will be interesting to see what the public comment returns on this, as this will be one (of the many) issues we will need to focus on in some detail going forward.
Cheers,
Peter
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Oflynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:10 AM To: Dr. Sarmad Hussain Cc: 'RT4 WHOIS' Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
Thank you Dr. Sarmad! I like this last edited draft and would be happy to have this published for public comment. Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer" From: "Dr. Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad@cantab.net> Date: Wed, March 02, 2011 4:55 am To: "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "'RT4 WHOIS'" <rt4-whois@icann.org>
Ok, though with minor wording adjustments; see below.
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf OfJames M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:21 PM To: RT4 WHOIS Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Definition: "Consumer"
Team:
As discussed during our call, here is the proposed bifurcated definition of "consumer" for inclusion in our call for comments. It has been chopped up a bit for readability, but I did endeavor to preserve the overall meaning.
I've also modified the "Feedback Requested" to be more open ended.
Thoughts / feeedback? I'm off to bed now, but will check back in a few hours.
Thanks--
J. _________________________________ In the global sense, "consumer" may mean: * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities,
And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and Whois Service maymean:
* Any consumer that acts as a Producer of WHOIS data (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and Provider of Whois Service (e.g. Registrars), OR User of WHOIS data(e.g. individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data.).
Feedback request from community
Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition. Is it too broad or too restrictive? In either case, how should it be changed.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3475 - Release Date: 03/02/11 00:34:00 _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
participants (4)
-
Alice Jansen -
Dr. Sarmad Hussain -
Emily Taylor -
Nettlefold, Peter