Education - was Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Correct info in RIPE-database - YES

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
[...]
> I would also welcome some input from ICANN on (for example) the SSAC
> and other related work on whois accuracy, cooperation and engagement
> with the various registries on mitigating abuse ..

As an aside and fyi,

I *may* and hope to be in a position to report about the state of affairs
and issues, or even emerging results, of ICANN's RT4 on "whois policy"[1]
at RIPE63. While this activity is primarily targetting the names whois,
my expectation is that some of the findings (and inputs, like from LEA and
data protection support) may also be of interest to the IP resource registry
whois environment.

The target date for delivery of the RT's report is before the end of 2011.

I am on this RT as endorsed by the Address Council, as well as trying to
contribute my experience with registry issues from the RIPE DB-WG and some
CERT stuff.

The RT's next major F2F meeting is scheduled for September in Los Angeles.

> thanks
> --srs
> 
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote:
> 
>>To be fair, I think it has been very hard to follow what has been written to the list over the last week or so. A significant number of messages have not been clearly written and may well not have been thought through before being sent.
>>
>>Focusing on the definitions issue, it would be useful to have an agreed set of definitions for some of the terms used. Is there a commonly agreed list?

Regards,
Wilfried.

[1] https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team