Thank you Peter All of your comments and proposed amendments seem sensible to me. I think you raise good questions on the IDN recommendations, and look to those in the IDN small group to response, please. Thanks Emily On 3 May 2012 03:16, Nettlefold, Peter <Peter.Nettlefold@dbcde.gov.au>wrote:

Hello all,****

** **

Thanks to all for the hard work on this – I think it is a very good piece of work.****

** **

Like Emily, I have avoided making any comments of substance, and I think we have worked well to achieve really clear and balanced recommendations, and have worked well together as a team to reach those positions.****

** **

That said, I did make a few edits and comments where I thought it would help clarity and consistency.****

** **

First, I edited a few minor easy-to-fix typos in revision mode (e.g. a missing full stop, some places where we said ‘Whois’ instead of ‘WHOIS’, a missing ‘the’, etc).****

** **

I also spotted a number of formatting and stylistic issues that would be good to address, but I did not make all of the necessary changes, as I expect we will adopt a consistent style across the whole report, and I don’t know what that is. The main ones I noticed were:****

** **

**· **The indenting of dot points is inconsistent across the document (sometimes we indent them, sometimes not)****

**· **Sometimes acronyms are spelled out, at other times not, or not on their first usage (I started noting some obvious instances, but stopped, as there were a lot). I did not try to impose a fix for this, as I can’t remember if we’re using a glossary or not? ****

**· **We are inconsistent about capitalising (eg ‘compliance’ and ‘Compliance’) – my personal preference is not to unnecessarily capitalise, but in either case we should be consistent****

** **

This is pretty minor stuff, but would nonetheless be good to fix in my opinion, if possible.****

** **

Lastly, and of more substance:****

** **

**· **I made a couple of comments in the IDN section – I do not want to change the intent of this section (which I broadly agree with). However, I have made some comments about the clarity, as there were a couple of areas where the current text appeared unclear or ambiguous – at least to me. I haven’t offered text in all instances, so will look to others to help clarify if possible. These are not show-stoppers for me, but more about clarity.****

**· **I highlighted the accuracy text already commented on by Susan, and support her proposed changes to keep our references to inaccuracy consistent (I didn’t make the changes, but only highlighted the text, in case others disagree).****

** **

All of my comments and edits are in revision mode, and none of them are show-stoppers for me, so if others disagree I’m happy for them not to be picked up.****

** **

I hope this helps.****

** **

Cheers,****

** **

Peter****

** **

** **

** **

*From:* rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Emily Taylor *Sent:* Thursday, 3 May 2012 3:25 AM *To:* rt4-whois@icann.org *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary - clean and checked****

** **

Hi all****

Alice, as agreed this morning, has gone through and produced a clean version of the Executive Summary.****

** **

I have now reviewed this for sense, and attach a mark up showing the following:****

** **

1. correction of a few minor typos****

2. Page 1: our work has taken 18 months, so I put that in instead of "year-long"****

3. Page 5: recommendation 1 I changed "take" to "taking" in the last bullet point for sense.****

4. Page 11: on the second bullet point (recommendation 10) I added that the contact details are "for the privacy/proxy service provider". This takes on a comment/suggestion made by Seth a few days ago in notes on the draft to say that the sense of this bullet point was not clear.****

5. Page 11: I think we should put in a footnote to say that "thin" whois will be explained in the glossary (and check that it is!)****

6. Page 13 (findings for IDNs): I have included Sarmad's proposed language described on this morning's call.****

** **

That's all - it reads well, and I think we should be proud of it.****

** **

There are more nit picky points that I wanted to make about certain recommendations, but have held back. We're done.****

** **

If you would like to make your own comments, please do so as soon as possible today.****

** **

Alice - please can you take in these tracked changes and now combine the Executive summary into the final document for publication.****

** **

Alice - the final document should also include the new chapter on compliance (cleaned up - let me know if you'd like me to review this once you've taken in the edits), and replacement of Findings and Recommendations chapters with the new text from the Executive Summary.****

** **

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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.****

** **

* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com.

* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *

-- * * 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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.