Re: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] WSWG - Doodle for 16 April 2012

[Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>]

I can see the point in listing time frames in the abstract but would avoid any 
context. I don't think that the considerations behind statutes of limitations 
necessarily work here and I think that we should avoid ideas that survey 
questions are being driven by any constituency. That's particularly true now 
given LE/ICANN battles.

In addition, data retention is another government time period issue that's big 
right now. One of the arguments against minimum retention periods, albeit not 
necessarily with respect to contracted parties, is the cost of storage. I 
expect objections to whowas that are based on that issue.

Sorry if "time period options is a good idea" would have been sufficient.

Don

From: Cintra Sooknanan 
<cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Whois Survey WG 
<gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] WSWG - Doodle for 16 April 2012

Hi Everyone,

I know Berry is currently working on the draft. By no means do I intend to 
duplicate his work, but following our call this week I have a few additional 
modifications and comments (highlighted in yellow). Some of these are simple 
and can be incorporated in Berry's revision, but my comment to R10 would 
require discussion:

R7
 2. Should WHOIS clients display result of queries in both U-label and A-label 
for the
domain names?
[  ] Yes
[  ] No
[  ] Indifferent

R10
7a. If Yes, what should be the retention range?
[  ] 6 months
[  ] 1 year
[  ] 2 years
[  ] 5 years
In all jurisdictions there are statutory time limits to legal actions being 
brought, these are called limitation periods. Limitation periods are sometimes 
explicitly stated in laws or come about based on common law; and vary depending 
on the liability (civil or criminal) and actual charges. Should we suggest 
retention range time limits in line with some typical limitation periods?

By way of example and further explanation the limitation periods are not 
specifically defined in ICT legislation in my jurisdiction (Trinidad and 
Tobago)  but arise via other laws, such as
-3 years after commission of the offence or 1 year from its discovery, 
whichever is earlier s.45 Consumer Protection and Safety Act;
-4 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued and 12 years after 
the date of final judgment s.3 Limitation of Certain Actions Act
... etc.

I suggest that this section is modified to include ranges of years that we 
consider to be typical limitation periods (we can seek advice from legal on 
this) such as 1 year, 3 years, 4 years, 6 years; but as well include an 'Other' 
checkbox with room (256 characters) for explanation.


R11
-Numbering of questions to fit formatting of other sections (i.e. instead of A. 
B. etc should be 1. 2. etc)

-Questions A. and B. can both include  0 = Indifferent and 'do you think it is' 
can be replaced with 'is it'
===============

Thank you very much for your review and input.

Regards

Cintra Sooknanan





On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Berry Cobb 
<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
WSWG,

Our call for 16 April 2012 is confirmed at 19:00 UTC.  Here is the latest draft 
survey.  I consolidated two different versions into v0.8.3 (Cintra’s edits +new 
R7 & R10).  You will find a redline and a clean version.

I will send out an agenda in the coming days.  Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735<tel:720.839.5735>
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb


From:owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
 
[mailto:owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx>]
 On Behalf Of Cintra Sooknanan
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 09:33
To: Berry Cobb
Cc: gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; 
Nathalie Peregrine
Subject: Re: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] WSWG - Doodle for 16 April 2012

Hi everyone,

I made some changes to the version 7 of the survey, had some difficulty with 
the R-7 section in terms of breaking down the requirements into questions.

I don't have editing rights to the wiki page, but I'm hoping this this version 
8 of the survey can be placed on a child page in it's entirety and comments can 
be added there to ensure capture.

Regards

Cintra Sooknanan


On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Berry Cobb 
<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
WSWG,


Please complete the following Doodle poll to determine availability for the 16 
April 2012 session.  http://www.doodle.com/26vp25eqk4rc3sfu

20:00 UTC is our original time, but I also included an option for 19:00 UTC 
just in case.

By the 16th, we will have our 1st full draft of the survey ready for review.  
Since our last session, R7 now has six questions based on the IRDWG’s initial 
report recommendations.  Lastly, I am working with Don to finish R9 & R10 in 
the format of other questions.  Once we complete these two sections, I will 
send out the latest draft early next week.

After review of the latest draft, we should be ready for the questions to be 
loaded into the survey tool and prepare to submit the draft to the GNSO Council 
and open a public comment period.

A few other actions the WSWG will consider at our next session:

·         Identify a few candidate survey test-takers

·         Final editors of survey draft

·         Webinar & Public Comment

·         Independent review, post GNSO Council submission and public comment

Thank you and see you on the 16th.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735<tel:720.839.5735>
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb